Proposition 53K2281

Projet de loi portant diverses modifications du Code électoral, des lois coordonnées du 18 juillet 1966 sur l'emploi des langues en matière administrative, de la loi du 3 juillet 1971 relative à la répartition des membres des Chambres législatives en groupes linguistiques et portant diverses dispositions relatives aux conseils culturels pour la communauté culturelle française et pour la communauté culturelle néerlandaise et de la loi du 23 mars 1989 relative à l'élection du Parlement européen.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

April 4, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Brussels region European election division into constituencies institutional reform organisation of elections Province of Flemish Brabant election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 12, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

We will first understand the rapporteurs, namely M. by Bruno Van Grootenbrulle, M. Michel Doomst, Ms. Marie-Christine Marghem, M. Luk Van Biesen, Ms Muriel Gerkens, M. Renaat Landuyt, M. Stephan Van Hecke et M. by Georges Dallemagne.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, as a rapporteur, allow me to refer primarily to the written report and invite you to browse it for a comprehensive presentation of the reforms undertaken. I will limit myself, for my part, to summarize to you the very nature of the bill on which we are brought to vote, with my colleague Michel Doomst in charge of reporting to you the exchanges conducted during the debates.

This bill aims to split the Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde electoral district, while ensuring the consolidation of the fundamental rights of citizens and resolving political problems at the national level. It thus offers a solution to the repercussions of the judgment 73/2003 of 26 May 2003 of the former Court of Arbitration, the current Constitutional Court.

For the election of the House of Representatives, the bill provides for the establishment, in the former province of Brabant, of three electoral districts: the first in Flemish Brabant, the second in Wallon Brabant and, finally, a specific district of Brussels-Capital.

In addition, the voters of the six peripheral municipalities will have the choice to issue a vote either in favour of a list of the electoral district of the Flemish Brabant, or in favour of a list of the electoral district of Brussels-Capital. The seats allocated to these electoral districts shall be allocated in accordance with Article 63, § 2 of the Constitution. An electoral threshold of 5% will also apply in the three new electoral districts.

It should be noted that the provisions of the Electoral Code relating to the election of the Senate remain applicable; they will be modified at the time of the Senate reform.

This bill ensures that the special arrangements aimed at safeguarding the interests of French and Dutch speakers in the former province of Brabant may, in the future, be modified only by a special law.

As regards the election of the members of the European Parliament, the text provides for a modification of the composition of the electoral districts since, on the one hand, the administrative district of Hal-Vilvorde will fall under the Flemish electoral district and, on the other hand, the electoral district of Brussels-Capital, taking over the administrative district of Brussels-Capital, will be established.

Voters from this latter electoral district will be able to vote for a list of French or Dutch colleges. The same applies to voters in the electoral canton of Rhode-Saint-Genèse.

By inserting Article 168bis into the Constitution, the right for the voters of the six peripheral municipalities to vote, in the framework of the European election, for a list of candidates from the French or Dutch electoral colleges is guaranteed by special modalities that can only be modified by a special law.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but please give a small overview of the explanations made by the submissions of the various proposals in the discussion.

Mr. Gerolf Annemans gave a fascinating presentation with an overview of all the arguments that also his party counterpart Bart Laeremans had raised during the discussion in the Senate Committee on Institutional Affairs. Subsequently, colleague Annemans also gave a further overview of the Community negotiations, in particular on the split of the electoral circle during the successive years until the agreement reached in September last year. According to colleague Annemans, there should be no compensation for the split of the electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. Still, according to colleague Annemans, this was accompanied by the expansion of the Brussels Region so that there would be a common border between that Region and the Waals Region. He also argues that the bill is balanced.

Mr Thiéry is not surprised to find that he cannot find himself in the discussion of the draft law at issue. Although the legislature was forced to act after the partial destruction by the Constitutional Court’s judgment of May 2006, this judgment does not, in his view, imply an obligation to divide the electoral district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde.

Colleague Weyts noted that the scheme for the division of the electoral circles itself contains compensations that harm the Flamings. According to the judgment, however, the rules to be adopted for Brussels may contain special modalities that differ from the rules applicable to other electoral circles.

Collega Maingain has recalled the commitment that has been included by the French-speaking parties countless times since the important judgment of the former Arbitration Court, now the Constitutional Court. Those who argue that the bill does not carry out a pure division of the electoral circle are mistaken, according to him. The division of an electoral district comprising 54 municipalities into, on the one hand, a Brussels electoral district comprising 19 municipalities and, on the other hand, Halle-Vilvoorde, a part of the Vlaams-Brabant electoral district, with 35 municipalities of which the facility municipalities are part, is indeed a pure division.

Mr Stefaan Van Hecke has drawn attention to the fact that the draft proposals presented are the translation of an agreement which in a meaningful way contrasts with the unilateral decision in the Committee on Internal Affairs, taken in 2007.

Collega Bacquelaine has recalled that from now on it is stated that in the draft laws certain special modalities and the essential elements of the reform can only be amended by a two-thirds majority and a simple majority in each language group.

Secretary of State Wathelet has confirmed in his response to questions that the present bills do not change the language legislation. The government has opted not to opt for the solution of the polarization. For the definition of the special modalities, the Secretary of State referred to the answers given in the Senate by his colleague Verherstraeten.

Numerous amendments were submitted and explained to the draft. They were rejected. The entire draft law, including the annex, was adopted by 12 votes against 5.

On 22 June 2012, the Senate submitted to us thirteen projects aimed at implementing several aspects of the Institutional Agreement for the Sixth State Reform. They were subdivided into four themes. I am responsible for the report concerning the second package, i.e. the municipalities of the periphery, administrative disputes and the appointment of mayors.

Your committee dedicated its meetings of 26 and 27 June to the consideration of this second theme, on which the draft laws on the revision of Article 160 of the Constitution and the Special Law are concerned. With nine votes against five, the committee rejected the request made by Mr. Ben Weyts to hear the first president and chairman of the State Council.

The first draft concerns the examination of disputes by the General Assembly of the Administrative Section of the State Council, at the request of persons established in the municipalities of the periphery. Secretary of State Wathelet explains that the institutional agreement provides for entrusting to this general assembly all administrative litigation relating to the six peripheral communes and to the natural or legal persons located there. Those, whether public or private, which are established on the territory of these communes, may request that their affairs be dealt with by a linguistically paritary court. The jurisdiction of the general assembly relates to the administrative litigation of these six municipalities. Regulations and administrative acts emanating from these are examined, as long as other levels of authority and guardianship authorities – including in the case of an appeal against a disciplinary decision – are not affected. The presidency of the General Assembly is exercised alternately by case, depending on the entry in the role, by the first president and the president of the Council of State. The vote of the chairman of the meeting shall prevail in case of parity of votes.

The second draft aims at the revision of Article 160 of the Constitution, as I said earlier. Secretary of State Wathelet indicates that the Institutional Agreement of 11 October 2011 provides for the modification of the powers and modes of deliberation of the general assembly of the section of the administrative litigation of the State Council with regard to the litigation of the peripheral communes. They are defined in a draft law submitted simultaneously with the draft constitutional revision submitted for examination. The present draft revision must therefore be read together with this draft law. These are the rules concerning the general assembly of the section of the administrative litigation of the Council of State, which may no longer be amended in the future except by a law adopted by the special majority, provided for in the last paragraph of Article 4.

The proposed constitutional text has the effect that the constituent signals its agreement with regard to the options taken by the legislator and that the other constitutional principles do not preclude these options. This reform therefore touches the essence of the great balances and justifies contributions to community peace by analogy with the other provisions contained in the Constitution.

The third draft law is a draft special law amending the law of 9 August 1988 called "community pacification" and the special law of 8 August 1980 on institutional reforms concerning the appointment of mayors of peripheral municipalities. Secretary of State Wathelet explains that the institutional agreement provides for the establishment of a new procedure for the appointment of mayors of the 6 peripheral municipalities. This new procedure relates to the search for an indispensable balance between the interests of the different Communities and Regions within the Belgian State and aims to avoid further community confrontations. The specific regime applies exclusively to the 6 peripheral municipalities and not, for example, to the municipalities of Comines-Warneton and Fourons. This new procedure is inscribed in the so-called "Community Pacification" Act of 9 August 1988, to which it is referred.

This special law therefore specifies the extent of the exceptions to regional competences in matters of subordinate powers. The Court of Arbitration has also confirmed that, in such cases, changes to the legislation could only be made by a special law.

As regards the last draft, it is the draft special law amending Article 16bis of the special law of 8 August 1980 on institutional reforms and Article 5bis of the special law of 12 January 1989 on the Brussels institutions.

Secretary of State Wathelet notes that the institutional agreement provides for the following new guarantees. First, the appointment of the mayors of the 6 peripheral municipalities has been prepared. Secondly, the administrative litigation relating to the six peripheral municipalities will be settled by the general assembly of the section of the litigation of the Council of State when the conditions provided for by this law are met. These new guarantees require an update of the standstill, which has the effect that the guarantees contained in this law can no longer be infringed.

The Secretary of State invites the members to read the standstill together with the draft revision of Article 160 of the Constitution, which provides that these provisions can only be amended by a special majority. The three projects are based on the same intention. You have noticed it.

The general report was followed by a discussion in which many amendments were introduced and, since we are two rapporteurs, I now pass the word to my colleague, Mr. by Van Biesen.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marghem has clearly outlined which bills we have discussed. During the discussion, several elements were highlighted.

Mr. Damien Thiéry had a particular difficulty with some elements added to the debate and which, in his opinion, sensu stricto have nothing to do with the dossier. He also talks about amended positions that the State Council could take, depending on the language of the President who is to make the decision at that time.

Mr. Bruno Valkeniers explained the criticism of his group on these bills. According to Mr Valkeniers, the new arrangement for the oathing of the mayors is absolutely unclear. Like his colleague Logghe, he believes that the reform is in conflict with the Flemish administration’s 12 and 15 and also the 17 and 20 chips prepared in preparation for the state reform. In connection with the stand still bills, Mr Valkeniers refers to the position of the Council of State on this subject.

We talked extensively with Mr. Ben Weyts. He asked why the Dutch-speaking Chamber of the Council of State in the draft arrangement is replaced by a bilingual Chamber. He sees only one reason for this. As rapporteurs, we have compiled the sentence of his presentation. Mr. Weyts stated that “ethnicity makes its entry into justice.” This is a heavy judgment.

Reactions have been received from the Secretary of State and Mrs. Van Vaerenbergh. Mr. Logghe has once again pleaded for an hearing with the State Council. The Secretary of State points out that the State Council has just issued an opinion on the bills submitted to the Senate. In other words, it made no sense to hold a hearing on an opinion issued by the State Council itself.

Several speakers are disappointed by the answers of the Secretary of State, explicitly Mrs. Van Vaerenbergh. She recalls that the draft laws establish privileges for French speakers without compensation for Dutch speakers. Mr. Logghe regrets the summary answers given by the Secretary of State to the critical questions in the committee.

Secretary of State Wathelet responded again to Mrs Van Vaerenbergh. He stated that it is not necessary to protect the Flemish people living in Flanders from their own government. The draft law does not in any way change the procedures for the use of languages or the functioning of the general assembly. What changes is that from now on the State Council can make a positive decision in connection with the appointment of a mayor. Furthermore, the State Council has no objection to that provision.

All articles and amendments were then explained, discussed and voted on. In the end, the four bills were approved with the same majority of 11 for and 5 against.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I am in charge of making you the first part of the report concerning what we have called the “Bruxelles package”, that is, the special bill on the metropolitan community, the special bill on the fair financing of the Brussels institutions and, finally, the bill on the financing of the international and capital role that belongs to Brussels.

As regards the Brussels Metropolitan Community, it will consist of the three Regions of our State, the federal authority, as well as all the municipalities of the former province of Brabant. The provinces of the Flemish Brabant and the Wallon Brabant may, in turn, join if they wish to.

There are cooperation relations between Brussels and its hinterland. They are essential to the effectiveness of the policies to be carried out, whether in terms of employment, economy, territorial planning, mobility, public works or the environment.

This metropolitan community will have the mission to organize the consultation between its various entities on topics that are of regional competence but that have a cross-regional impact. A cooperation agreement will therefore need to be concluded to determine the modalities and the object of this consultation. Once this agreement has been concluded, the consultation can only take place within that metropolitan community.

It is important to point out that this consultation does not imply new obligations as they exist and are currently defined, with the exception of decisions that would concern access via the ring or the reduction of the possibility of access to and outside Brussels.

In these matters, a genuine consultation must indeed take place. If one of the Regions made a decision without concertation, it would be considered that there is a violation of the rule of allocation of competences or of a substantial form.

As regards Brussels financing, the draft special law determines or improves the fair financing of the Brussels institutions considering that these institutions are subject to major challenges, whether in terms of education, childcare, training, vocational training, security, mobility, and that the role of Brussels is amplified by its status as a major city and capital.

A gradual refinancing of 461 million is planned by 2015 to benefit the Brussels-Capital Region, but also the Flemish Community Commission, the French Community Commission and local authorities. This funding will be organized, in a second period and complementarily, through the revision of the special funding law and by the introduction of a horizontal "navetters" allocation from the Flemish Region and the Walloon Region and a "international officials" allocation.

Brussels is also characterized by a significant demographic growth. Therefore, the basic amount of the special allocation for the Commission of the French Community and for the Commission of the Flemish Community will also be gradually increased, each year, from 2012 to 2015, by EUR 10 million.

Since the number of European summits has doubled, the Brussels-Capital Region and its local authorities must face increasing security and prevention spending as part of Brussels’ role as the national and international capital. The 25 million credit granted to the Fund for the financing of security-related expenditure resulting from the organisation of European summits will therefore be increased from 30 million to 55 million euros.

In addition, the scope of eligible expenses will be expanded to cover all security expenses. The decision on the allocation of the fund resources will therefore be taken by the Brussels-Capital Region, through the regional members of the Cooperation Committee, but after the advice of the federal through the federal members of the Cooperation Committee.

The base amount of EUR 125 million paid annually to the Beliris Fund is consolidated. Furthermore, from the financial year 2012, a special allocation will be paid directly to the budget of the Roads and Means of the Brussels-Capital Region as a special allocation due to the mobility policy, including public transport. This allocation will evolve from 45 million euros in 2012 to 135 million euros in 2015. After 2015, this allocation will evolve according to inflation and 50% growth of gross domestic product.

The latter provisions concern compensations to be granted to the different levels of power and entities of the Regions and Brussels which are affected by immovable pre-account exemptions. The presence of a very large number of public buildings immunized from real estate pre-count weighs heavily on the incomes of some municipalities. The municipalities where these buildings represent more than 72% of the non-perception of the real estate pre-count will be granted compensation for the amounts not collected. Regions will receive a 100% compensation for non-perception by 2016 at the latest. Finally, what we call the death hand will also be compensated in favour of the Brussels-Capital Region in the amount of 24, then 25 million.

A last important element concerns the required bilingualism for the staff of all Brussels local administrations and for all services of the Brussels-Capital Region, the agglomeration and the Joint Community Commission. A considerable effort must be made towards the staff. This is why a Fund is created to finance language awards granted by regional and local governments to holders of a certificate of second language proficiency. Hospitals dependent on CPAS are considered institutions where bilingualism is important; they will therefore also benefit from this financing of language premiums. The latter will be in charge of the federal authority. The amount to be paid by the federal state is estimated at 25 million euros in 2012 and will evolve according to inflation.

This is the content of the bills relating to Brussels, its role as a metropolis and its financing. I give the floor to my colleague Renaat Landuyt, who will summarize the interventions in the committee.

The draft laws explained by colleague Gerkens were discussed by the committee on 27 June, 2 July and 5 July 2012.

The first speaker was Mr. Weyts, who, referring to constitutional specialist senator Francis Delpérée, explained the distinction between “Community” with large letters and “Community” without large letters, to then use the criticism that the Brussels Capital Community is either an empty box, or a Trojan horse. An empty box because there is nothing in it, a Trojan horse because it contains the possibility of expanding Brussels, with which he obviously does not agree.

Mr. De Man called the present draft in his very extensive discourse “the resulting of a century of frenchization and effective expansion of Brussels”. He put everything in a historical perspective, starting with a study by Professor Els Witte of the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, in particular: “Struggle for language, the Belgian language question in historical perspective,” a work that he, by the way, welcomed and further illustrated with other scientific studies to support his position.

Mr Schoofs focused his argument on the draft special law concerning the correct financing of the Brussels institutions, which, in his opinion, includes a reform detrimental to Flanders and, in particular, the word “correct” does not deserve in his eyes. He also referred to various studies that contradict each other, to conclude with the study of his study service.

Mr Goyvaerts saw the institutional agreement as a clear victory for the French-speaking parties, both in the short and long term. This statement was also supported by studies, although he pointed out that some studies contradict each other.

According to Mr Annemans, the draft proposals presented are a constitutional error and an aberration which he historically indicates with reference to the previous state reforms.

The State Secretary for State Reform has once again defended the draft and responded to the punctual criticism. He was supported here in the name of the majority by Mr. Van Hecke who in turn referred to a study on the internationalization of the Flemish Rand around Brussels. All this in defense of the bills.

The amendments were rejected. The bill was adopted with 11 votes against four.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the fourth section on which these bills relate was discussed during the meetings of 2 and 3 July. The President declared several amendments, submitted by Mr Annemans, inadmissible on the basis of the Rules of Procedure. Mr Annemans regretted that.

In the fourth loop there are two important components, namely a special law and a common law, holding the amendment of the electoral law in order to strengthen democracy and political credibility. The Secretary of State explained the content thereof, namely: the prohibition of being a candidate for incompatible mandates in coincidental elections, the obligation to effectively include the last mandate for which one is elected, and the prohibition of being simultaneously an effective candidate and candidate successor. These principles are regulated by ordinary law for the federal level, the elections to the European Parliament and the German-speaking Community. The principles for the elections of the Flemish Parliament, the Wallish Parliament and the Brussels Capital Parliament are regulated in a draft special law.

Mr. Weyts regretted that political innovation is addressed only in electoral legislation. In terms of constitutional autonomy of the counties, he says, a step back is taken. “The cumulative ban applies to simultaneous elections, but what is meant by simultaneous?” he asked. He also wondered whether elections are still simultaneous if they take place, for example, with a week difference; and how simultaneity should be interpreted. The speaker also raised the question of whether or not these rules can be changed again later in the context of constitutive autonomy. According to the speaker, a whole bunch of measures announced in the government agreement are no longer reflected in the previous draft.

Mr. Veys continued Mr. Pas’s speech, which had begun with a sort of historical overview of all the views that the parties to this matter have already taken in the course of the year 2001.

Mrs De Bont focused her argument on the draft special law amending the special law of 8 August 1980 reforming the institutions concerning the extension of constitutional autonomy.

The Secretary of State responded to the various comments and pointed out that the present drafts are only a first step towards the political renewal contained in the constitutional agreements and towards a measure to be included, such as for example the prohibition of changing any electoral rule less than one year before the scheduled date of the elections.

The Secretary of State also said that the prohibition to be a candidate for the elections of a parliament applies if someone is simultaneously a candidate for the elections of another parliament, when these elections take place on the same day.

He confirmed that the proposed extension of the constitutional autonomy does not prejudice the right of vote of Belgians residing abroad in the Regional and Community Parliaments.

Mr Weyts noted that the prohibition to be a candidate in the elections of a parliament only applies if the elections take place on the same day. To circumvent this measure, therefore, it is sufficient that one election takes place a week after the other election. This issue was discussed extensively in the committee.

Mr Van Hecke confirmed that the proposed drafts are part of a chapter to which his party attaches great importance. There has been no reform in the last twelve years to advance the political renewal. To the attention of those who argue that the prohibition to stand for several elections can be bypassed simultaneously by organising the elections on two consecutive Sundays, he replied that the law must set objective criteria, such as elections on the same day. The legislator can never predict all possible situations.

After several replies, the vote was passed. The proposals on the strengthening of democracy and political credibility, both the proposal to amend the ordinary law and the special law, were adopted with 14 votes in favour and 1 vote against. The draft special law on constitutional autonomy was adopted with eleven votes against four.

I would like to point out that Mr. Van Hecke has just spoken not only in his own name, but also in the name of Mr. Germany as co-rapporteur.

I will keep it relatively brief, given the large load of legislative proposals. I wish I could be a lot smaller. Normally, the discussion could have been completed in 10 minutes, because for the split of BHV a bill is enough. Today there are not one, but 16 bills for this: one for the division, fifteen for the price that the Flamings must pay.

You say that BHV is divided and you swing with that one bill. About the other 15 you say nothing. Even then, the government parties defend the agreement by saying what it is not capable of. There is no explicit, literal and immediate extension of the Brussels Region. It does not mean that we have to move out of our Flemish municipalities. It does not mean that we should apologize. The French speakers had twenty of the pot rushed demands and you have been able to resist five of them. Amai, congratulations to you!

Let’s look at these bills. We must, of course, always keep in mind the reason why we wanted the split of BHV. What was actually the intention? I can invoke various political and legal arguments or refer to the Constitution which contains the provision concerning the classification into language regions and regions.

In the end, I think, there are two main reasons: first, to ensure that there is less community hive in the Flemish Rand; second, once and for all to ensure that the language boundary is no longer challenged and no longer questioned by the French speakers. The French speakers who live in the Flemish Rand had to be made a diet that they live in Flanders and not in Brussels. This seems to me to be two essential reasons.

Whoever looks at the 16 bills finds that they lead to a greater community hole and that the language limit is sometimes removed. There will be additional privileges, ‘speciallekes’, for the French speakers in the Flemish Rand. They are going to be in Brussels even more than they are today. They have their own magistrates and their own courts in Flanders. The Brussels Capital Community is established. There will be a separate arrangement for mayors and so on.

We expect migrants in Flanders to adapt. Why can’t French speakers in Flanders adapt? Why is it always so that the reality must adapt to the French speakers instead of the French speakers adapt to the reality?

The first cluster of legislative proposals is about a so-called pure division, this is how one tries to make our diet. It is pure, at least if one makes an abstraction from the other 15 bills.

Well, that proposal is unfortunately not pure. It is good that the electoral district BHV is divided. Let there be no uncertainty about this. But the proposal for division is unbalanced.

I will compare with the note of Bart De Wever as royally more clarified, because you also repeatedly refer to it. You can make the comparison. That note was, for us, a painful compromise. We found that there were not only cherries, but also acid plumes. It was painful, but it provided a balance. All Flemish parties found that a balanced proposal, even Open Vld.

This balance provided, among other things, for the preservation of the electoral rights for the French speakers in the facility municipalities with a double ballot. In addition, it also provided for the preservation of the electoral rights for the Fleming in Brussels, on the one hand, by pooling and, on the other hand, by the non-introduction of the electoral threshold.

In what is present here, there is nothing for the Brussels Flames. The Flamings in Brussels no longer have a seat in the Chamber. The official bilingual capital will no longer have a Flemish representative in the Parliament. The capital of 6 million Flamingos will no longer be represented in the House. It will only be represented by 4 million French speakers, as the proposal does not include pooling and the voting threshold is ⁇ ined.

I have, by the way, heard in the hallways that you wanted a debate and a vote on 10 July, on the eve of 11 July. This was obviously the question of you as Flemish parties. Even that was not granted to you. You have also taken it back again. In this case, you are also turned home with hanging legs. In this regard, you are again humiliated by the PS, which was against. You didn’t even get a debate on 10 July, let alone a vote.

In fact, this is quite the case, because you know that the July 11 celebration takes place in Brussels. I do not know what you would have said to the Brussels flames. What would you say to those Brussels flames?

Would you have told the truth that one of the red threads through the accords is the cleansing of Brussels from Flemish presence? Would you have told that? Would you have said that Brussels is becoming less bilingual? I refer to the reduced bilinguality of the magistrates, as only one-third of the magistrates in Brussels must be bilingual. Would you have said that the number of Flemish magistrates will be reduced to 20%? Would you have told about apartheid in the Zenne, where top jobs are reserved only for French speakers? Would you have said that the Flamings should pay 1 billion euros to Brussels for that?

Would you have said that no one Dutch-speaking elected from Brussels will be sitting in the Chamber anymore? With the note of De Wever, there would be at least 1 Flemish elected from Brussels. Today there is nothing, no apparentation, no pooling, but a electoral threshold. Had you even done this, you would have only made sure that the electoral threshold would not be introduced for Brussels by way of special modality. I looked at it for a moment. The actual electoral threshold in the new constituency of Brussels is 3.4%. Had you not introduced a voting threshold for Brussels as a special modality, then we might have formed a cartel for the elections in Brussels with CD&V, and then we might have had another elected one. There was even a great opportunity. However, even that you did not get in. You may not even have asked it, I don’t know. It is not in it at all. What is the result now? Without a seat.

Suddenly, the Flemish Brusselsers of the majority parties have the impression that they are actually cheated by their own party. Mr. Vanraes and others say that the Brussels Flamings are the butt of the agreement. They say it suddenly. Wouter Beke also apparently realized this suddenly. Wouter Beke is calling for a Flemish unity list. Immediately there is the reaction of Mr. Vanhengel from Open Vld, who finds that a bad idea and is against it. Open Vld and Vanhengel in Brussels apparently do not feel related to CD&V, the N-VA and other Flemish parties. Apparently they feel ideologically, socio-economically and communityally more related to the PS than to the Flemish parties. Here you can see Mr. Vanhengel with the comrades of the PS, the cartel list in Evere. Mr. Vanhengel and the comrades – they are comrades, I don’t know if they sing the International – are all in the picture here. Here you can see 33 candidates from the PS and 3 from Open Vld. Open Vld in Brussels is so far away that the group apparently feels more related to the PS than to CD&V, the N-VA and other Flemish parties. So far away are those people. I will give you another fun. In the picture is also Fatiha Saïdi. You know, that senator of the PS, who is actually found by the PS already on the left. That is the lady who stopped the plane with those Congolees at the expulsion.

With someone who is considered to be too left by the PS and who gets a squeeze from Elio Di Rupo, Open Vld goes into cartel. And then dare to say that we give up Brussels? Who is in charge of Brussels?

What is also quite crisp in this cluster is that all guarantees for the French speakers are embedded in special laws and in the Constitution. This means that the clock cannot be turned back. All those “special leagues”, all those privileges are registered and accredited in the special laws and in the Constitution.

In order to safeguard the legitimate interests of the Dutch speakers and the French speakers in the former province of Brabant, the law provides for special modalities. The rules establishing these special modalities shall not be amended except by a special majority.”

This raises two questions. First, you are talking about the legitimate interests of the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking in the old province of Brabant. Can you explain to what extent these proposals protect the legitimate interests of Dutch speakers in the former province of Brabant? It is only the French speakers in Flemish-Brabant who receive privileges and “special lessons”. For the Flamings in Waals-Brabant there is nothing.

Secondly, from now on, the special modalities can only be amended by a special majority. Also in the committee was asked what those special modalities are. In response, Mr. Verherstraeten gave a summary: the double voting letter, the absence of pooling and the absence of a voting threshold. They can never be changed. Those are the special modalities.

Mr. Wathelet said that it was not only that, but that there were more and there will be more in the future. In the future, a government, a simple majority, can determine what special modalities are and can therefore say that this or that matter must suddenly be changed not by an ordinary majority, but by a two-thirds majority.

That is, therefore, again an instrument that is created to neutralize the Flemish majority, on top of the existing barriers and security mechanisms of all kinds, with therefore again only one goal: again to make that democratic majority mouth-dead.

Finally, there is the cooperation system for the Senate. There is a peculiarity there. I refer again to the intention of confirming the language boundary, to make it clear, to make the French speakers a diet that they live in Flanders and not in Brussels.

Something very strange is created here, because for the distribution of the coöptation seats for the Senate, the votes obtained by the French-speaking parties in Halle-Vilvoorde, in Flanders, therefore, over the language boundary, count. Thus, you de facto encourage the French-speaking parties, even compel them to appear only in Flemish-Brabant, in that new constituency.

From now on, all the flamingos in Flemish-Brabant, not only in Halle-Vilvoorde, but also in Leuven, will find French-speaking propaganda in the bus. This was in Beersel this morning in the bus, from the men of the FDF. French-language provocative propaganda, soon also in your bus, Mr. Francken, also in Leuven, thanks to this system.

The additional purpose of this system is primarily to maintain the link, the direct link between Halle-Vilvoorde and the French speakers. This is a plan B, and I will talk about it later.

A second cluster of Flemish concessions concerns the mayors and the Council of State, speaking of additional “special lessons”. Today the situation is as follows: facility municipalities are Flemish municipalities with special facilities for French speakers. They are Flemish municipalities and therefore they are classified, like all others, under the Dutch-speaking Chamber of the Council of State.

However, there are two problems in the head of the French speakers. First, it is a court in which there are no French speakers, no own people. Second, that Dutch-speaking chamber of the Council of State, that Dutch-speaking court sets out judgments that the French-speaking sometimes do not please. These two problems are both resolved here, if a court makes judgments that do not please the French speakers, then you simply replace that court. That is what happens here. A court that makes judgments that do not please the French speakers is thrown aside, it is simply replaced by the General Assembly of the State Council, a bilingual court, a court with French speakers, with its own people. This Chamber will now decide on the administrative contentieux and the like in the six facility municipalities.

The French speakers therefore do not have to adapt to the environment and reality. No, the reality, the environment is adapted to the French speakers. It is a perfect example.

I will give another example. The Court of Appeal at Mons has issued a judgment in which it expressed itself against the roundsendbrief-Peeters. Is there damn one Flaming who has said, “We will change the Court of Appeal to Mons, away with that Court of Appeal?” No Flaming has said that, because we respect the independence of the judiciary, we respect the separation of powers. Not the French speakers. For them, apparently, only their own people can speak objectively right.

De bedoeling is simple: men wil de rondzendbrief-Peeters, via een omweg, opnieuw voorleggen aan de Raad van State. Men hoopt dat de Raad van State dan een ander oordeel zal vellen, men hoopt dat die tweetalige rechtbank een ander oordeel zal vellen dan een Nederlandstalige rechtbank. What is bedoeling? More community heibel!

Mr. Weyts, I want to interrupt you for a moment. I would like to remind you first and foremost that the Flemish government itself has determined that the present agreement is not in conflict with the Flemish government agreement, unfortunately for those who envy it.

I establish that your party is in the Flemish government one day, and resigns the next day. You just have to explain yourself how you will sustain that spread. For the Flemish government, including N-VA ministers, what has been announced is not in conflict with the Flemish government agreement.

I will not go into all the “special lessons” you have quoted. I would like to make it clear to you that as long as there are disagreements in politics and as long as you do not get half plus one of the votes – and a Flemish majority is not even enough – you will have to engage in dialogue and concert with others, and at a certain moment to come to a settlement. I will use the ugly word for you again: a compromise. You must be able to reach a compromise that at some point puts an end to a political disagreement in order to move forward. I think that is essential in politics.

You can control it on other levels with which you control. In Flanders, you can do it. Sometimes against your will, I understand. In Antwerp in the mobility dossier, in other matters about taxation or taxes, you make compromises, but at the Belgian level that is apparently impossible for you.

So, if I listen carefully, it will never be enough. The concessions made are aberrant to you.

I would like to remind you that you have been involved and that you have also put suggestions on the table. You have also wanted to make a comparison about Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, as you have always said before the elections that there really was no need to make a comparison because we have the Constitutional Court on our side. Now you are trying to regain the hard Flemish virginity by imagining it as if every concession is actually a concession too much.

Well, we say with eight parties that the present text constitutes a fair comparison. You are trying to explain that it would have been different with you, that it would have been a matter of a walk-over with you. You would have been swallowed over the French speakers and there would have been no Flemish concession, no “specialleke” so to speak, on the table. Who believes that, Mr. Weyts? Who believes such a thing? No one, except yourself!

I would like to conclude my speech as follows. Your party has the mental attitude that it does not want that compromise at the Belgian level, because that Belgian federal level is not important for your party. Your party wants to compromise at all levels, but not at the Belgian level. You will not benefit from a solution.

Thro ⁇ the negotiations, you have used a tactic similar to that of the crumbled earth – I didn’t really want to use that term – to prefer not to get a solution, to let the matter mount, to make the matter further rot instead of choosing a solution. Well, the eight parties, a two-thirds majority in the House, reject this calling policy and prefer an agreement to make our country move forward again and to engage us with others, with the real problems with which the people are dealing.

Mr. Dewael, what you say in the first part of your presentation, you would of course like: that the N-VA would step out of the Flemish government. You would like to see that! Those who make a bad agreement here would like to see you rewarded by joining the Flemish government again. The slide is running out! You would like to have that.

Secondly, you say that we cannot compromise. I just told you what the proposal for compromise was from the royal clarifier, a solution for BHV, a solution that everyone on the Flemish side, you inclusive, found balanced, on two pages. The difference is that on top of that you have made a bunch of Flemish concessions!

What is the essential difference? If the PS says that the compromise is unacceptable, then take note of it and start again with a white sheet. If the N-VA says that the compromise of the PS is unacceptable, then you simply dump the N-VA, then you dump the largest Flemish party. That is your responsibility!

It is also normal that then, without the largest Flemish party, you will eventually reach a worse agreement. That seems quite logical to me. That is your responsibility.

Colleague Weyts, I think you, by wapping with those two papers, do present the matter a little too simple. That so-called compromise, which was acceptable for you, was not acceptable for all Flemish parties and would also have been unacceptable for the voter. That is probably, by the way, the reason why you didn’t even accept it or pushed through on the basis of it.

The problem is simply that the technique used by the Flammers has brought the Flammers where they are now. When Bart De Wever in tempore non suspecto, when Leterme was still busy, himself came forward and said that he for BHV possibly was willing to give une cuillère de sucre – he said that in French, both on the RTBF and in The Seventh Day – the Flemish Belang came to your secretariat to throw out a truck of sugar before your door.

With this we have wanted to symbolize that, if one is willing to negotiate on that matter, on one cup of sugar, it is only a matter of time for that one piece of paper to be granted the thick stack that the others have now done. The fault is not in the concessions of others. The mistake is in negotiating about BHV. That is our opinion.

Colleague Weyts, in one case – I hear that also from people who have been sitting at the negotiating table from the beginning – I must give you the right: you have indeed been sitting at the table with ⁇ few sheets. The input of the N-VA was very lean at any time. That is your problem, Mr. Weyts.

We started with a basic text and we have come to results. It is not meant to lose weight after elections, but to increase the results. Your problem, Mr. Weyts, is a problem that also a crocodile always has: a great mouth, but many too short legs to come to results.

Previous speakers indirectly said what I want to replicate.

I just want to ask Mr. Weyts one more question. Today you have a tough and radical demonstration against the French speakers. What is your official speech?

I respect the French speakers and I want to make agreements with them. But as far as the Chairman of the Flemish Parliament Jan Peumans yesterday in the Gothic Hall of the City Hall, I find it lightly over.

You know well that the only reason why Mr. Peumans did this is because we are talking about the split of BHV today and because we will approve it tomorrow. Belgian politics is being liberated from an angel that has been in it for decades, but Mr. Peumans has not even the correctness to point out at least that fact on the holiday of the Flemish Parliament. He has overloaded the French speakers with praise statements that are at least misplaced and very false.

It is also never good! Now Peumans is making an opening to Wallonia. He says very kindly that he stretches their hand and then the weather is not good.

Mr. Doomst, you say you have not seen me at the negotiating table for a year. This is true because you have never been there.

You refer to Mr. Peumans’ proposal on cooperation with Wallonia. This is a cooperation based on volunteerism and respect for each other’s borders and identity. That is the difference!

The same rules apply to mayors. Here too, the Dutch-speaking Chamber of the Council of State is no longer competent for disputes but the bilingual court with its own French-speaking judges. For example, ballous, Fransdolle mayors – like Mr Thiéry – may appear before their own judges who will undoubtedly speak objectively right.

Furthermore, the bilingual court will now decide on the appointment of the relevant mayors. That has never been seen. Everyone has a mouth full about the primacy of politics. In this, the court will soon decide on the appointment. Does it solve something? No, it does not solve anything. On the contrary, the appointment carousel is encouraged.

It will still be the case that, even if the appointment of the mayor is refused by the Council of State after an appeal procedure against a decision relating to the Flemish government, the municipal council may nominate that same candidate for the mayor’s office. This is the case, carousel after carousel. Nothing, nothing, zero is resolved. On the contrary, problems are created.

The bilingual court that deals with all these matters is composed in parity with an equal number of councillors. If decisions need to be made, one does not get so far with an equal number. For this reason, an uneven number is created, because the chairman is alternating a French speaker or a Dutch speaker. French speakers can perfectly calculate when there will be a French-speaking majority in that bilingual court. This is also a fun thing that was given to the French speakers.

These are again imbalanced measures that ensure more heabilities in the Dorpsstraat in the Flemish Rand and in the Wetstraat. Again, the “special leagues”, the privileges for the French speakers, are poured into the Constitution and in special laws, but only for the French speakers. This has the advantage of honesty and openness. Now it is also literally stated that there are only guarantees for French speakers included in the special law and the Constitution. The protection that the Vlamingen enjoy, for example due to the round sending letter-Peeters, does not fall within these guarantees.

A third cluster of Flemish concessions concerns Brussels. Brussels receives the treasure of Beersel. It is not about me, but about money. The Flamings must give Brussels a blanco cheque of 1 billion euros, including the arrangement that we are still waiting for, and in exchange the Flamings receive less bilinguality. The number of Flemish magistrates is reduced to 20%. We get apartheid on the Zenne. Top jobs are reserved for French speakers. No more Flemish selected in the Chamber. And of the promised structural administrative reforms nothing comes back.

I am talking about all that administrative institutional clutter in Brussels with the 19 mayors, the 19 municipal councils, the 19 ship colleges, the 19 OCMW councils and the 6 police zones. This means that Brussels has an army of politicians of about 1,000 people. In Bachten de Kupe I always say that they should be careful when they go to Brussels and must show the necessary respect because when they step on the tram in Brussels there is undoubtedly also a Brussels politician. So they are advised to pay attention to their words.

Why will the Brussels Region use this money? Actually, we do not know that. The agreement states that this money is specifically intended for, for example, mobility. However, the State Council honestly points out that the current arrangement does not allow the money to be used. Therefore, in our constructive self, we have once again pushed forward a compromise. If you effectively want the money to be allocated as you want it, you can. There is already a very simple crack in the special law today, namely that the budget of the Brussels Capital Region can be controlled by the Parliament and by the government. We have submitted an amendment on this subject that meets what you request. The State Council notes that you can’t give all those millions of euros, that you can’t make it hard. Well, for that we have a solution. We are therefore again constructive and always at your service.

The majority may have held the tension ahead of this plenary session, but our amendment was rejected in the committee. In the committee, even a very banal amendment was rejected, in which we, since the money comes mainly from Flaming, ask for a participation of the Flemish Region, even of the Flemish Community and of the French Community in the Beliris Fund and the Beliris Committee. It is about our own money. We have something to say about our money. This amendment was also rejected.

Part of the extra money will go to the Beliris Fund. The Beliris Fund is a Brussels Fund for the capital and international function of Brussels. This is the official title. The fund is financed by federal, read especially Flemish, tax money. The Court of Auditors acknowledges that the Beliris Fund has been under poor management for years. For years, we have continued to put millions of euros in the aforementioned funds that are not used.

Then I can give you a flower reading of spending from the past. You are then immediately reassured about what will happen with the Flemish money in this regard. In 2012, for example, 11 million euros went to culture or what kind of culture should continue, such as a martial arts hall, subsidies for the decoration of facades, three swimming pools and an athletics academy. Sport and culture are not even regional competences. Thus, such spending is actually illegal.

However, all this is so-called for the benefit of Brussels’ capital and international function. Swimming pools and martial sports contribute to Brussels’ capital and international function. I admit that according to some foreign media, Brussels is indeed the international capital of street violence. However, I do not think it is intended to contribute to this.

What will the money be spent more on? You do not suggest. The money will also be spent on new additional powers. So the Region has no more money and the coffers are empty, but if it then gets additional resources, it spends those resources on new powers that it gets. If one cannot save it today with the money that one gets, one would think that one with extra money simply does what one should do today. But no, the Region demands and receives additional powers, even if others already exercise those powers. Take for example tourism. It even means that it needs to be overcome. Therefore, money must also be spent on this.

Mr. Weyts, if you tell this story, you must be honest. The agreement included what the money should be used for. Part is affected, part is not. You started on the part for mobility. You complete your amendment. We know that the State Council has noted in this regard that the federal government cannot decide where this money should specifically go. However, everyone wanted this money to be used specifically for mobility.

The solution has been found, Mr Weyts. Last week Friday, the Brussels Parliament passed a resolution and decided that the funds that will occur will be spent on mobility. Almost everyone agreed, one person after another. Even the former Flemish Belangers in the council voted, the FDF voted, but a N-VA’er abstained. We do not know why.

The text clearly states that the funds, up to 135 million within a few years, should be used for mobility. You do not approve that well. My conclusion is that you do not want extra money to go to mobility in Brussels. Now you will come up with such an amendment. Mr. Weyts, the problem is resolved. The money will be used for investments in mobility.

The Brussels capital government was probably very impressed with your resolution! We vote here every day resolutions for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for world peace, against global warming. How is it possible that this has not yet been realized? Resolutions were adopted! In particular, continue approving resolutions, if you can help therapeutically.

I had forgotten the following. What do they get in exchange for all their money? It is the Brussels Capital Community. You think, of course: a fourth community, a new additional community, that is not possible. What is then the difference from the Communities which exist today and which are in the Constitution?

Mr Delpérée explained the difference in the Senate. The difference is the small C and the large C. The Community with a large C, that are the existing Communities. The community with a small c are the new communities. It is as simple as that.

The Manual of Institutional Rights will now state that there is a distinction between a community with a small c and a community with a large C. If it wasn’t all that sad, it would sound ridiculous.

Why should the Brussels Capital Community come here? I ⁇ ’t actually know. Bart De Wever had invited the regions in his compromise proposal and called on them to conclude cooperation agreements. It can already today. Today, the regions can conclude cooperation agreements over everything and more. Our Philippe Muyters has concluded agreements with the Brussels Capital Region. Everything can be perfect. There is no need for a new structure.

Either the Brussels Capital Community is an empty box, or it is the Trojan horse. In both cases, we must immediately discard that story. After all, if the community is an empty box, it is useless. Then we can just dump them. Then we can cooperate on the basis of the cooperation agreements. If she is a Trojan horse, for the expansion of Brussels, we must be sure of it.

Some make the comparison between the current Brussels Capital Community and the euregio Rijsel, Kortrijk and Bergen. A not insignificant difference is that it is a cooperation based on voluntariness and without hidden agendas.

In the Brussels Capital Community, the municipalities are obliged to be part of the Brussels Capital Community, from my own Beersel to Gooik, Londerzeel, Kapelle-op-den-Bos, Diest and Tienen. From now on, they will be legally obligated, compelled, part of the Brussels Capital Community. That’s all for the sake of cooperation, on the basis of coercion, with the gun against the head. This is a strange way of cooperation.

Mr. Doomst says on his website – and be assured, I will save his quotes from the past, it is the only time I will quote him: “It should be clear: we do not step into a metropolitan community that is seen from the French speakers as an expansion and not as an integration method. For us, no metropolitan Trojan vehicle.”

The N-VA is clear. In municipalities where we could have it for saying after October 2012, we say that we do not cooperate in any case with that Brussels Capital Community.

Given his position, I ask him, then, whether Mr. Doomst will take the same stance and therefore also say that he will boycott that Brussels Capital Community and will in no case cooperate with it?

If you would open your mouth a little further, you would see that you are speaking with a split tongue.

You say that we with the Brussels Flamings should come to solutions constructively, but if there is a possibility to engage in a dialogue from region to region, from independence, you say no again.

The way you only cultivate acidity, conflict, and hostility is to become more depressed than the weather already makes you. If you would open your mouth a little more, that split tongue would become more and more clear.

You’re a little like Eric Van Rompuy, who with great acuracy says that the others are acidic.

Apparently there is a misconception. Do you think that Brussels Capital Community serves to maintain ties with the Brussels Flamings, with Bruno De Lille and others?

Now you are defending that Brussels Capital Community. So apparently you have changed your mind. I note that. That is a choice. For the voters in Gooik, it is clear. Either they choose the N-A and ensure that their municipality does not cooperate with the Brussels Capital Community, or they vote for Mr. Doomst and CD&V and then they know that their municipality does cooperate with the Brussels Capital Community.

These “special leagues” are also reaffirmed in the special law. That is clear. The French speakers find it all such good agreements, that they want to concrete all those privileges, all those agreements, all those guarantees in the special law and in the Constitution, and that is then above all those barriers and blocking mechanisms that already exist. How is a democratic policy still possible in this country?

In Belgium, the democratic majority does not rule, it is blocked. Another explanation for that locking and cementing is more cynical. A number of new rules are unconstitutional and clearly violate the principle of equality. The classic way of declaring unconstitutionalities constitutional is by inscribing them in the Constitution. There is no appeal to any court possible.

There is another reason for this emphasis in the special law and the Constitution. I will quote Professor Christian Behrendt, a constitutionalist at the ULG. He whispers into several French-speaking political parties. He is quite open. I will quote him in French.

"I believe that this risk of seeing the linguistic border around Brussels transformed into an undisputed state border in the event of a future partition of the country is rejected. Many strong institutional links have been established between Brussels and the six facilitated municipalities as well as between Brussels and the large periphery. In particular, in particular:

- the judicial district of Brussels is inscribed in the Constitution and special laws as extending to all the 54 municipalities of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde;

In criminal matters, the right to be tried in his own language is absolute in the whole BHV.

- specific rules for referral and language change in judicial matters are provided in the six facilitated municipalities and in the whole of Hal-Vilvorde;

- Always in judicial matters, voluntary appearance is possible before the judge of his language within the 54 communes of BHV. The voters of the six facilitated municipalities can vote directly for the Brussels French-speaking lists and the votes of the voters of Hal-Vilvorde are fully counted in all French-speaking votes issued during the parliamentary elections;

facilities are guaranteed;

- a metropolitan community extending to the whole of Brabant is created."

Colleagues, this is the plan B: the French speakers are preparing for the possible split. I heard Wouter Beke repeatedly say today that they can wipe out the protest of some because they are engaged in the division of the country. Well, those who are really engaged in the division of the country are sitting with Mr. Beke at the table. Only he does not understand that. They claim to negotiate for the preservation of the land, but in fact they are preparing for the division of the country. All Flemish concessions, additional privileges and their concrete, fit perfectly into that framework.

I am therefore very bitter when I hear the statements and read from Flemish prominent people who talk about community pacification. They read it everywhere. Mr. Wouter Van Besien says that after more than 40 years of discussion about the BHV electoral circle, this will finally provide community tranquility. Mr Doomst and Van Biesen have made similar statements. According to Mr. Verherstraeten, there will be more pacification in the Flemish Rand, a peaceful society between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking people in that region. In the French-language press, it is even more explicit: “We create the conditions of a durable community peace. “La Peace, finally the Peace.” This is what Mr. Verherstraeten says. La paix, enfin la paix, in Mons ⁇ , Mr. Verherstraeten.

Can I tell you how life really happens in the Flemish Rand? Life as it is in the Flemish Rand after your agreements. I speak only about the recent months and only about the facility community that I know best, Saint-Genesius-Rode, next to Beersel, my congregation. I can tell you that the Rode police zone is not allowed to participate in the bicycle action of “Come on against Cancer” because it is organized by the Flemish League against Cancer. Officials of Saint-Genesius-Rode are not allowed to participate. Saint-Genesius-Rode refuses to organize De Gordel on its own territory.

Also a bicycle action for children is prohibited, the activity “Look! I have a bicycle!” It is intended for children between 4 and 7 years old and is normally organized by a municipal vzw Wauterbos. The ship college has decided that the action to teach children bicycle should no longer be organized by the municipality. It imposed a ban. The reason for this is that the accompaniment of the activity takes place in Dutch. Moreover, the publicity was also in Dutch. Quote: “We were not allowed to even distribute folders in the municipal schools in Rode.” That is your “paix communautaire” in the Flemish Rand, Mr. Verherstraeten.

However, it becomes even worse.

Mr. Speaker, for the honesty of the report, I would like to say something after what Mr. Weyts said about the decision of the College of St. Genesius-Rode. The reasoning of the college refers to an explicit letter by N-VA-Minister Bourgeois, which requires that all publications delivered in the schools must be in the two languages. That is the essence of the case.

You, of course, know perfectly well that this is not accountability and that this does not hold hold. “La paix, enfin la paix”, but it is good that you motivate your attitude and you are more than right.

I will tell you what the intention is. You have made this agreement with MR, Ecolo, Green and cdH. The mayor of Sint-Genesius-Rode, Mrs. Rolin, is Chamber Member for cdH. In Saint-Genesius-Rode they will once again form a front with all French-speaking parties, with la Liste du Bourgemestre, with cdH, MR, the good friends of FDF and of course also the good friends of Ecolo.

Why do they do that? Well, that is very simple. Look, do you see that? That is the goal, that is why they will be on one list: “pas d’échevin flamand au conseil communal”. It is not about good governance or new roads in the municipality, it is about the fact that there would be no more Flaming in the ship college. That is the intention of these people. The ship college purify from Flemish presence, that is the purpose, so they will be on the same list together with Ecolo’s good pacifist friends.

You know the definition of racism. I looked again at the website of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for the Fight against Racism, strange that one has to look for it there. It refers to the following definition: “Expressing contempt, hostility or hatred of one race towards another, arising from a sense of surplus value.” Well, this is contempt, this is hostility, this is hatred, this is racism.

Om het nog duidelijker te stellen zal ik eens een andere proberen: "No Turkish shevin in the municipal council. There is no Moroccan shovel in the municipal council. No Arab shovel in the municipal council!”

If it were there, the cock would be too small. But this is all possible, because it is against the Flames.

To this party you make Flemish concessions with the meat. You give them extra privileges. “La paix, enfin la paix!” Do you really mean that, or are you trying to make us wise?

I am very upset that with this agreement it will get even worse. The measures you have included in these agreements make things worse. They make for more community heels, they make for more quarrels, even between you two. One says white, the other says black.

I give the example of the Brussels Hoofdstedelijke gemeenschap. From Vlamingen among u say: “It is a lege doos.” Zij zeggen wit. From Frenchstaligen unter u sagen black. Zij zeggen – en ik cite opnieuw de website van de MR: “Brussels has strengthened its connection with the 6 facilities municipalities whose status is now embedded in the Constitution. In addition, the agreement consents the existence by a special law of a metropolitan community that allows to expand Brussels on the basis of the Grand Brabant.”

CDH says that too.

“As Joëlle Milquet wanted for a long time, a metropolitan community, whose principle will be inscribed in the special law, will be born, which organizes the de-enclave of Brussels in an obvious way.”

You say wit, they say black. What will the result be? More community heibel! De rondzendbrief-Peeter is thereover very clear. De Vlaamse partijen zeggen allemaal: “De rondzendbrief-Peeters is zeer goed, die moet absoluut blijven bestaan.” De heer Bacquelaine says in de plenaire vergadering: “These are illegal circles.”

I cite opnieuw of website van de MR: "The initially planned legal consecration of the Peeters circular was prevented by the MR."

In the note of Bart De Wever there was a solution, namely the inscription of the logic of the interpretation of the language legislation, as stated in the circular letter-Peeters, in order to anchor it in the legislation. A Flemish victory and above all a solution to a problem. “C’est donc la loi actuelle et la jurisprudence récente, favorables aux francophones, qui s’imposent. Si des abus du côté néerlandophone persistent, un recours sera possible devant l’assemblée générale” – thus with French-speaking judges – “du Conseil d’Etat.”

What will be the solution, what will be the result? And a clash. They will attempt to re-present the circular letter-Peeters – which is literally stated – to the bilingual general meeting of the State Council. There is therefore again hebel, not only in the village street, but also in the Wetstraat.

I come tot de taal van de oproepingsbrieven voor de verkiezingen. Out of debatten is also thereover clear gebleken dat u wit says, while they black say. According to logica van de rondzenbrief-Peeters moeten die oproepingsbrieven eentalig Nederlands verstuurd worden. That says of Vlaamse partijen. De Franstalige partijen zeggen dat die in het Nederlands en in het Frans opgesteld moeten worden. That is literally. “Joëlle Milquet has declared itself in favour of the choice made by the mayor of Rhode-Saint-Genèse for the sending of peripheral election calls in both Dutch and French for French speakers.”

They say white and they say black. The solution will consist of more conflict, more contradictions.

So I can even go through. Constitutive autonomy for Brussels. CD&V says clearly that Brussels is not the same statuut may have as of two other large regions. From Vlaamse in French Gemeenschap moeten daar een belangrijke stem behouden. Dan says of MR: “The MR obtained the consecration of Brussels as a full-fledged Region in the Constitution, which was denied to it since its creation in the late 1980s. It is finally put to an end at the time when Brussels benefited from an institutional sub-status.”

Again you say white and she says black. The solution will consist of community conflicts.

In the debate, criticism of the N-VA has been addressed several times. You accuse us that we only say, not do. But what have you done? You took the compromise proposal of De Wever, of the royal clarifier, which you found perfectly balanced, and throwed 16 bills on top there, Flemish concessions, additional ‘special leagues’ for the French speakers in the Flemish Rand which sometimes de facto removes the language boundary, there is a decline for the Flemish in Brussels, more community hill in the Rand and a less Flemish Rand. There you made another blank cheque for Flemish money on top. You did that. You would better have done nothing.

If I see this bundle, if I see all this, then I understand that this agreement is supported by all French speakers minus three crazy governments, and that there is barely a majority on the Flemish side. Is everything lost, Mr. Van Hecke? I do not know. I count a little on you. It surprised me a little last week when I noticed the aggressiveness, the brutality with which the Green-Ecolo faction raced against this government. I would quote Mr Calvo for a moment: “This government shows ⁇ many similarities with the old nuclear reactor Tihange 1. Both old, from a century ago, worn and unreliable. This classic tripartite ensures that Tihange 1 remains open until 2025. Well,” Calvo says, “I hope the voter will make sure that this classic tripartite does not remain until 2025.” Mr. Calvo of the Green-Ecolo group thus actually says that he hopes that the voter makes sure that the plug is pulled out there. However, Mr. Calvo has the plug in his own hands. He asks the others to pull on his arm.

Mr. Weyts, I am pleased that you are listening carefully to Mr. Calvo and to the message he brings. It was about nuclear energy. We have a different opinion, but you are making a big mistake. You have already done a lot. If you want, I will add a few more later. There is a government with six parties and there is a community agreement with eight parties. You know that very well. The Community Agreement with eight does not concern the government. The government consists of six parties, but I understand that it is intellectually difficult and not obvious for you to understand the difference between six and eight.

We criticize the government for certain policy decisions. We will, if necessary, carry out tough opposition, but we have an agreement with eight. That agreement, which is a balanced agreement, we will implement loyally, as we expect from everyone.

I try to repeat what Mr. Calvo said. Mr. Calvo has said that one can quickly remove the plug from this government, from this tripartite, and that it is a shame that it still exists. However, you have that plug in your own hands. You even talk about distrust.

I also read what your chairman Wouter Van Besien says: “They are rolling us. An appointment is an appointment, but they are rolling us, those majority parties. I have no confidence in them anymore.”

Dear Green Faction, you have already been rolled, already three times.

First, you have always said that you continue to support this agreement because you have won a big prize, a big trophy, namely the political renewal and the restoration of political credibility. You say that thanks to the Greens, there will be a regional electoral circle in the state parliaments. You have already rolled there, because that possibility already exists in the law. I will give an example. Patrick Janssens can run throughout Flanders, in a regional electoral circle. It can already do so, on the basis of current legislation.

Second, you say: done with the double candidates. Patrick Janssens, for example, can no longer stand for the Flemish Parliament and for the Chamber, but – that are the small letters – that only applies to coincidental elections. They must even coincide on the same day.

Meanwhile, I heard Prime Minister Peeters say that in 2014 they will not hold the elections simultaneously, not on the same day, but that they will leave a week between them. The double candidacy is perfect. Patrick Janssens can therefore be on both lists. Mr. Van Hecke says in the committee that week difference was an unforeseen circumstance. This is not an unforeseeable circumstance, right? That circumstance is already announced by CD&V, by Prime Minister Kris Peeters. This is the second time you have been ridden.

Third, you argue that voter fraud will be abolished and that there will be no more false candidates. For example, it can no longer be that Patrick Janssens appears in the House, but still remains in the Flemish Parliament. According to the Greens, such possibilities are over with pre-existing agreement on political credibility.

However, in the small letters it is stated that this does not apply to the successors. Patrick Janssens can therefore perfectly commit voter fraud if he, Flemish parliamentary member, is simply on the list of successors to the House. So he can perfectly commit voter fraud and voter fraud.

Does the restoration of political credibility mean that the small letters should be read? There will therefore arise a situation in which party chairs and ministers will participate in the next elections. However, they will only be with the successors. That is the only difference. Will such a rule restore political credibility?

You have actually been robbed three times. The cock has crushed three times. Either they have made you blisters, or you are trying to make people blisters wise.

Why would you still support the current government? You have the stick in your hands. If you do not do it for the environment and if you do not do it for the political renewal or for the nuclear exit, then maybe do it for the Flamings in Brussels, then do it for the Flamings in the Rand and then do it for me and our children in the Flemish Rand, so that they can still grow up in a Flemish municipality. Fuck it, do it.

I understand the great frustration with the N-VA. One important part, a first chapter, which the N-VA also considered important in all negotiations, is being approved today. Of course, one is always looking for something that can circumvent the rules. That is the sport. I will not talk about how Muyters and Bourgeois were drawn to the elections last time.

One could organize the elections with a week difference: federal elections on a Sunday and Flemish elections a week earlier or a week later. The present legislation does not prevent this. But well, that one does not use his common sense, one does not always stop with laws. Which government will decide to organize the elections a week earlier or a week later?

Well, if it depends on you, it can be registered in the law: there should be no week difference. What should you do if it is 2 or 3 weeks later or earlier? What is your alternative? How would you then formulate it? Have you submitted a clear amendment to overcome the gaps you have discovered? How will you do that?

You just ran away at the time when the agreements had to be concluded. That is the reality.

I probably misunderstood it, but I thought that Mr. Van Hecke would answer the note that the cock has scratched three times. He responded only with a replica. He says it is an unexpected circumstance, despite the fact that the Prime Minister is ready and clearly announcing that it is intended to organize the elections with a week difference. You do not adapt your bill to this. So you know perfectly well that voter fraud will still take place. Try not to make people wise.

Let us solve it. I suggest that you adopt another resolution.

by Mr. Dehaene was a collector of cocks.

The word is for mr. of Donna .

I listened carefully to Mr. Weyts who explained to us that these agreements constitute a great victory for French speakers. I am looking forward to Mr. Speech. Maingain who will explain to us that this is a great victory for Flanders. For my part, I believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle and that it would be better to look at the social and economic concerns of the population of our country.

On 11 October 2011, the six parties of the current government, as well as Ecolo and Groen, concluded an institutional agreement bringing the country out of the longest political crisis it has ever known. This agreement results from the courage and sense of responsibility demonstrated by the eight negotiating parties. Thus they were able to show their ability to exceed the interests of their party to get the country out of an almost total impasse. These institutional reforms participate in the will to stabilize our country expressed in Wallonia and Brussels and also respond to the desire for profound change expressed in Flanders.

The Commission for the Revision of the Constitution and the Reform of Institutions has been working hard in recent weeks to vote, before the parliamentary holidays, on the first part of the sixth state reform. I would like to thank the staff for the quality of the work done in such a short time.

In an effort to ensure consistency and effectiveness, the bills, special law and constitutional revision have been grouped by subject matter, namely four major themes which are as follows: the electoral BHV, the peripheral package, Brussels and, finally, the political renewal package.

With regard to BHV, these are obviously three letters that have poisoned political life for many years, following the 2003 judgment of the Arbitration Court. The BHV problem is now on the verge of being definitively resolved. This is an important moment for our country.

The three texts organising the split of the BHV electoral district provide a solution to this judgment in that they split the BHV electoral district while ensuring the consolidation of the fundamental rights of citizens and solving national political difficulties. It is also a compromise between the eight parties forming the institutional majority. All have, once again, demonstrated their ability to surpass the interests of their own party. Thus, for the election of the House of Representatives and the European Parliament, the voters of the six peripheral municipalities will have the choice to issue a vote, either in favour of a list of the electoral district of the Flemish Brabant, or in favour of a list of the electoral district of Brussels-Capital.

It is still a question of “betoning” in the Constitution, by the insertion of Article 168bis and by the revision of Article 63, the fact that the special arrangements aimed at guaranteeing the interests of French and Dutch speakers in the former province of Brabant can only be amended in the future by a special law.

As regards the periphery, first of all, as regards the appointment of the mayors of the six peripheral municipalities, French speakers can welcome this new procedure of appointment since the mayors will have an appeal before a linguistically paritary assembly.

In addition, a number of formal amendments – project 2286 – regulates the presentation by the municipal council, as well as the follow-up of the procedure for the nomination by the Flemish government of the mayor of the six peripheral municipalities and organizes a procedure allowing the designated mayor to challenge the refusal of his nomination by the Flemish government before the general assembly of the section of the administrative litigation of the State Council.

Thus, the entire administrative litigation concerning the six peripheral municipalities is now entrusted to the general assembly of the administrative section of the State Council.

It is provided that persons, both physical and legal, both public and private, who are established on the territory of the peripheral communes may, taking into account the sensitive linguistic character of the administrative litigation that may arise in these communes, request that their affairs be handled by a linguistically paritary court.

Finally, it is also planned to update the standstill rule to the guarantees in force on 14 October 2012, i.e. all of the new guarantees covered by the Sixth State Reform.

These three bills are accompanied by a constitutional revision (Article 160) in order to “concrete” in the Constitution, here again, the guarantees of the rights of French speakers.

With regard to Brussels, some have questioned its proper refinancing. This refinancing represents a fair and proportionate response to the needs of Brussels as a national and international capital, and as the first pool of jobs.

This fair financing also aims to strengthen the credibility of our capital on the European and international stage. Brussels, as a capital and large city, plays a role that poses major challenges to Brussels institutions in the fields such as education, childcare, training, vocational training, security and even mobility.

It is planned for a gradual refinancing by 2015 of 461 million for the Brussels-Capital Region, the Flemish Community Commission, the French-speaking Community Commission and also local authorities.

In parallel, a metropolitan community of Brussels will be born.

The objective is to actively promote cooperation in the fields of employment, economy, territorial planning, mobility, public works or the environment between the Brussels-Capital Region and its hinterland. The three Regions will still have to conclude a cooperation agreement to determine the terms and objects of this cross-regional consultation.

Finally, the fourth package projects are part of the political renewal and aim to make our electoral system more transparent and more understandable for the voter. From now on, a ban on the cumulation of candidates in simultaneous elections, whose mandates are incompatible with each other, is instituted. This involves the absolute resignation of electoral mandates already in progress in the event of election to another parliamentary assembly, as well as a prohibition of cumulative candidates between an actual place and a place of deputy.

The "renew" component could not be done without providing for an extension of the constitutive autonomy of the Flemish Community, the French Community and the Walloon Region, with regard to the rules relating to the composition of their parliament, to the deputy members, to the establishment of a regional constituency and, finally, to the devolving effect of the head box.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, these thirteen proposals in the first part result, as I said from the beginning of my speech, from a compromise. The principle of compromise always dislikes extremes. The many criticisms issued in recent weeks and still today on both sides can reassure us in our deep conviction.

My group believes that by taking the measures referred to in this first part, the eight parties have responded to the request of the citizens they represent and have not retreated before their responsibilities, as opposed to those who have not dared to take the slightest step forward. My group will therefore vote in favour of these thirteen proposals.

Mr. Speaker, patient Secretaries of State and good colleagues, you know that in politics a week is an eternity, a month is an eternity, and that in a year everything can change. Well, this file does not pull one year, not ten years, not twenty years, not thirty years, not forty years, but already fifty years. For fifty years, we have been trying to get this file across the line of the “Round of Flanders”. Today, after fifty years of sometimes difficult moments and a lot of cash rows, to say with another classic term, we are almost on the track of Roubaix.

Today I would like to pay tribute to all those who have not abandoned this path of suffering. Today, however, a very special, really common, an erasalut to those who on 21 November 1961 in this Chamber submitted this proposal – and I have the document here – namely the gentlemen Vanderpoorten and Van den Eynde, together with Corneel Verbaanderd, a people’s representative from the Flemish Rand, who said in this place: “The independence of which I did not understand that it was not previously allowed, offers not only an appropriate solution, but is also an act of legal restructuring against the Flemish.” Hopefully, colleagues, Verbaandert gets tomorrow, fifty years later, which he and the Flemish Rand simply have the right to. Admittedly, we are proud of it.

What is presented here is a pure solution. We acknowledge that this has been negotiated. One could blame, whatever happens, why that division was not resolved parliamentarily. We have tried this with honour and conscience and with conviction during the previous legislature. Today, the solution that leads to BHV seems to be an ackefietje, a fait divers. Colleagues, here is a federal government in the midst of the storm of the economic crisis about cases. Here, in half a century, this archaeological file has never been found. We once bite our teeth, but now we decided to bite.

I believe that for those who bite through the solution is never impossible.

You may compare and view this result, alongside the Egmont and Stuyvenberg Agreements or the near-agreement of 2007 after the Vollezele talks, and you will have to admit that this is for Halle-Vilvoorde the best possible agreement ever.

I will cite an unsuspecting source that confirmed this statement on 16 September 2011. BHV is something for the working people, but I quote a professor, Bart Maddens, who said: “The agreement reached is a pleasant surprise because there are no big concessions in it. This agreement is too close to the note-De Wever to speak of a jaw stroke.”

Colleagues, everything could indeed be cleaner if this country is completely divided. The Flemish Importance was clear in this. They wanted to talk to no one except themselves, because they wanted to divide the whole thing.

I want to restore the honor and reputation of Mr. Maddens. He referred to that one bill and not to those fifteen others with all those concessions.

But well, let’s agree to use from now on the views of Professor Bart Maddens as a test stone. Will we negotiate that? Then you can go home, Mr. Doomst. Then we can all go home. If you use him as an authority, as a reconciliation, then you must also say the whole truth and then you must say that Professor Bart Maddens completely dismisses what is now on the table.

I don’t need that quote as a change. I used his quote because he confirmed in it what you have confirmed, namely that it is a purely split agreement. We are not there with a hidden agenda. I know that elections are coming. I know that for some, the whole country can explode, but they do not say it because the voters do not want it. And in order to be in favor of the voters, they keep the choices on each other. We have no described back of that magazine. We have made our choices and this puts Halle-Vilvoorde on new tracks.

The majority’s proposal is pure, simple and transparent, as that good legislation fits.

I think the European, federal and Flemish demand to make it more transparent for citizens is right. This is a good example for Flanders. Therefore, this package can count on the support of the entire Flemish government.

This proposal will clear up the grey zone around Brussels. Our problem was that in federal elections about the shelling of Halle-Vilvoorde, people climbed to plant vegetables here and then left. This was for the French speakers a bit of the Comme Chez Soi of Brussels.

Now, in the 29 Flemish municipalities of Halle-Vilvoorde, no French-speaking headpieces will be allowed to be candidates. That is why we have responded to it. For the six facility municipalities, nothing changes. They remain integrally Flemish municipalities. The votes going to Brussels do not contradict the result of Halle-Vilvoorde.

Certainly, compared to Brussels, that division is quite categorical and pure, but Flemish-Brabant can also not be a permanent depannage area and remain the electoral Touring Road Aid of this country. We’ve been doing so for 50 years and we don’t plan to remain that for the next few years.

We will not leave Brussels. I hope that we will therefore get the support of all who today call themselves Brusselofiel, because this will provide additional resources for the European, international and binding role of Brussels, including in terms of safety, mobility, language awards.

That is what happens in Vollezele — and the wind comes in the Pajottenland often from the west — during the weekend of July 3 and 4 in Villa Hellebosch, on the terrace with the blue valley and the loft floor, with the beautiful black wing piano and with the Tour de France in the background, on the table is laid, Mr. Jambon. There was an agreement, and I literally quote from the conversation that took place there: “Elio, I know that for you nothing can be done without cents for Brussels.”

We continued on that line.

Mr. Doomst, you do not have to do so mysteriously about Vollezele, take the note-De Wever, it states to what amount we were prepared. However, it does not indicate the amount you were willing to pay and on the basis of which you reached an agreement and that it is three times the amount. That is the difference between you and us.

Mr. Jambon, that is indeed the difference between us, you start with things, you dare a little, you think a little, but you dare never do it. That is your problem.

We have asked for respect for Brussels. During the discussion on the judicial district, respect for the magistrates was also asked here.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Doomst, apart from the size of the amount, which was a glimpse, the destination and the link were also important. You are talking about language premiums, but language legislation should not be complied with. Today it is still the case, the language legislation is not complied with in Brussels. But you will give language premiums in order to continue the non-compliance with the language legislation.

You will read in the note-De Wever that there is a link made. You can read in the note-De Wever that additional money for Brussels is linked to institutional and administrative reforms. You can all read that and it would be witness to intellectual honesty if you admit it.

I don’t need to read that, we’ll try to do something about it on the ground.

I had come to the fact that you asked for respect for magistrates. The commotion may reappear in the facility municipalities in October, with circular letters and appointments of mayors. However, in the newly agreed phased arrangement, by those respected magistrates, this carousel will be stopped in time. The general meeting of the Council of State, which is sometimes humiliated here as being a refined card club, has so far also valued Flemish decrees. Neither the Constitutional Court nor the Council of State will refer them to the garbage cart.

For us, by the way, the round sending letter-Peeters is very important. This is the essence of the facilities. It lay on the fishing pad for a while, but we rightly quickly picked it out of that fire, because Flanders would have burned their hands on it.

With these proposals, Halle-Vilvoorde is finally getting out of that years-long twist. We now finally get the respect – that is the keyword – that this region also deserves in the form of an electoral circle and its own security policy in its own language area. We can build – Flanders is not only a calling sign but also a verb – to a region’s own identity. It is finally clear that Halle-Vilvoorde must not only be the veranda of Brussels, but after the own province also on those other domains is finally the boss in the own house.

Therefore, this scheme is a bit strict, but fair. There will indeed be no expansion of Brussels, no square centimeter. There is no corridor. There will be no federal elections. There will be no other arrangement than the constitutional modalities of the six. There will be no modalities for the twenty-nine non-facility municipalities. There is no initiative right for the French Community in the six: no new libraries, no new cultural centers, no change in the regulations of the inspection of the schools, no change in the language legislation, no change in the circulation letter-Peeters, no Brussels as a Third Region, no merely appointed mayors and no ratified minority convention.

I think Mr. Doomst is a little mistaken about the bill. What he lists was all assured in the bill that had been submitted by all Flemish parties, the bill that Mr. Doomst had said he would adhere to.

Mr Doomst, you promised your voters that you would adhere to that bill, which my party also agreed on, which all Flemish parties agreed on. The Flemish parties have said that this should not be negotiated and that no price should be paid for it.

What appears now is not the bill that you now want to sell to your voters as pure and without price.

Mr. Doomst, you have now listed what is not in the agreement. We have time today. You can continue. For example, you can supplement your list with: no ban on Dutch in Vilvoorde, no mandatory sterilization of the Flamings, no bombs on Antwerp. We can make a long list of what is not capable of.

What we have to do is what it is capable of: those fifteen concessions to get into one thing. That is what we have to do.

You are cycling around the matter.

I literally quoted you. The difference is that we bring it to a good end. We give this proposal a V certificate, and I know you’re more for B certificates lately. Whoever says he is not for revolution but for evolution must be able to agree with this.

The colleagues of the N-VA who were mandated by the voter to resolve BHV, and not to make it more difficult, have laid the foundation for this in the Pajottenland, but they can not say to their voters, “We are actually against the split and we voted against the split of BHV.”

I really don’t know with what spirit you’re going to leave on your next trip. This is a curse in the Flemish church.

Colleagues, I feel like you have the desire to bite in the butterham. Do it ! Overcome your food fear as it begins to resemble anorexia. He lies in front of you, but you have no desire to bite in him. Vlaams-Brabant is waiting for you. You have 24 hours of reflection time. We will now split the BHV.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, my dear colleagues, much if not everything has already been said in this Parliament, and even outside, on the BHV dossier.

The legal text and the constitutional text submitted to us today must be read together and put in view with the other texts already voted in the plenary session or in progress.

I will not hide that in the text amending the Electoral Code, which is proposed to us today, there are a number of elements that we have never asked. Let us be clear! But we have no difficulty in defending the proposed compromise.

Beyond the balances brought by the other texts of the agreement, we wanted to obtain a number of elements, which we considered essential, in the specific file of the electoral district. The first is the constitutionalization of the matter.

I said this in the plenary session on the judicial aspect and I repeat it today. What has been the main element of institutional blocking in recent years is, in fact, a kind of contradiction – which can be tragic in democracy – between, on the one hand, the expectations of a majority and, on the other hand, the fundamental rights expressed by a minority. This contradiction in our constitutional system is normally framed by the Constitution and by special laws. It is this mechanism that we have been using for several decades to not overthrow the majority but also to respect, at the same time, the minority in this country.

The Electoral Code dealt with essential things, but without the guarantees of the reinforced majorities. That was a weakness that we are going to address today. We know the serious consequences this has had for the political and institutional stability of our country. From now on, the special arrangements and the essential elements of the reform contained in the legislative texts concerning electoral and judicial BHV can no longer be amended but by a two-thirds majority, plus a simple majority in each language group. The institutional balance that has been found in this file between the eight parties is thus permanently stabilized.

The second element that, for us, is essential, is the particular character of the electoral regime that was to be envisaged within the six facilitated communes. We are satisfied with the solution that will allow the voters of these six municipalities, after and before the new law, to vote for lists of Brussels candidates.

As provided for in the institutional agreement, the six facilitated municipalities are therefore recognized as having a specific link with Brussels. This is obviously, from a Franco-speaking point of view, a major achievement, because it allows to insert in the Constitution the idea that rights, in this case electoral, transcend the linguistic boundary.

The third reason for satisfaction will be formally translated into the law with the reform of the Senate: the votes in favour of lists of French speakers, expressed in Hal-Vilvorde, outside even the six facilitated communes, will be well taken into account and agglomerated to the French-speaking votes given to this party in the rest of the French Community.

The total figure will serve as the basis for calculating the allocation of coopted senators. This is also an important achievement for French speakers, since a clear electoral link is established between the large Brussels periphery and the electoral territory actually covering the French Community and this, beyond the linguistic border.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bacquelaine, can you repeat your last sentence on the “Communauté française au-delà”? Can you repeat your last sentence?

I say that we establish a clear electoral link between the large periphery of Brussels, the territory of Hal-Vilvorde, and the electoral territory covering the French Community, Brussels and Wallonia, beyond the linguistic border.

Finally, and it was for us an inevitable electoral consequence of the division as desired in the north of the country, a electoral threshold is well planned for Brussels and the system of grouping lists is prohibited there. Therefore, a mechanism of tailor-made scission has been discarded, as could have been feared in some bills that passed through this parliament with an inefficiency inversely proportional to the chaos they created. Here, all parties will have to assume on a regular basis the electoral consequences that arise from political choices that led to the division of the district.

With regard to the appointment of the mayors, the opposition between the two theses had become insoluble and the judicial path itself contained vices of partiality or, in any case, which were felt as such. Since then, we have pledged to get out of the arbitrary by preventing an election by the municipal council. The novelty is therefore that the act of presentation of the mayor is confirmed by a vote in the municipal council. If the nomination should nevertheless be rejected by the Flemish government, an automatic action before the General Assembly of the State Council would then be activated. This solution provides a correction to the appointment process but also to the procedure before the State Council. We believe that this new system can pacify things if, of course, the principle of federal loyalty underlying it permeates the action of all actors in the process of appointing mayors in the municipalities concerned. For the Reform Movement, everything is in place so that these actors have useful tools to carry out the establishment of municipal institutions after the October election.

In addition to this solution for mayors, the institutional agreement also provides that all administrative litigation relating to the six peripheral municipalities and the natural or legal persons located there falls within the competence of the General Assembly of the State Council.

Here too, the ambition is to give the administrative litigation in these communes a mechanism that guarantees the impartiality of the rulings made by the State Council.

Finally, in the same logic of what is done for the electoral BHV and for the judicial BHV, a constitutionalization of the new rules will perpetuate the new balance and the new competences and modes of deliberation of the General Assembly of the State Council can only be modified by a special majority.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the proposals for legislation and for the revision of the Constitution, which are submitted to us in this first part of texts transmitted by the Senate, in fact reorganize an electoral mechanism and dedicate the place of Brussels in our political system, because, tomorrow as today, this mechanism crosses the linguistic border. It remains one of the indicators of our ability to imagine rules of peaceful coexistence between the two Communities of this country, rules now inscribed in the Constitution.

For us, the agreements reached enable our country to overcome the apples of discord that have poisoned the political debate for several decades. Now things seem clear to us. Brussels is no longer seen as a problem but rather as an asset, an asset as the economic lungs of the country. This is a fundamental change in our approach.

Since its creation in the late 1980s, Brussels has benefited from an institutional sub-status. A threat of co-management of the Brussels structures plunged constantly. Brussels is now refinanced. It is put in institutional connection with its periphery, ⁇ through the metropolitan community but also in the solutions undertaken for administrative litigation, for the appointment of mayors or for judicial BHV. The institutional agreement also provides for the constitutive autonomy to be granted to Brussels, and also to the German-speaking Community. The texts will soon be submitted to our assembly.

For refinancing, the government agreement provides for a gradual refinancing of €461 million by 2015. This is carried out, on the one hand, on the basis of the special funding law and, on the other hand, through the legislation that occupies us today.

We are delighted that the eight negotiating parties were able to share this analysis and dedicate Brussels as a full-fledged Region, Brussels as a large Central Region open to its periphery even beyond the linguistic border.

Per ⁇ this is the main difference from the coup attempted in 2007. Here, the solution given to BHV does not allow in any way to transform the linguistic border into a state border.

On the contrary, as Mr. Weyts, I will quote as a witness Professor Behrendt analyzing the agreements. “This risk of seeing the linguistic border around Brussels transformed into an indisputable state border in the event of a future partition of the country is rejected.” It was removed because it was complete in November 2007. It has been rejected, because Brussels is therefore recognized. Brussels is connected to its hinterland through the metropolitan community in particular. Brussels is refinanced.

This measure is anchored in the Constitution and locked by a special law. This is a chance for our country and, I think, a relief from the threats of enclavement, impoverishment or co-management.

But Professor Behrendt’s analysis is also a call to our vigilance. The risk is rejected because new links between Brussels and its periphery have been created and, above all, because they are protected by qualified majorities. However, the risk is never completely excluded.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by addressing the important question of political renewal. Long before the crisis that the country experienced for 500 days began a crisis of trust between citizens and their political representatives. The establishment of a government has allowed us to regain some credibility, but we would be wrong to believe that trust is nevertheless acquired. It remains in the political practices, but also in the organization of our political system, mechanisms that contribute to a gap between the population and the political world.

The institutional agreement brings a number of remedies, the first of which are the subject of the texts that are presented to us today. However, the agreement will need to be fully implemented in order to hope to permanently remedy the situation. The first step, therefore, is to establish a mechanism that obliges you to sit at the place where a candidate is elected.

We welcome the introduction of the three measures which constitute the prohibition of the cumulation of candidates in simultaneous elections, whose mandates are incompatible with each other, the full-right resignation of actual mandates already in progress in the event of election as an officer in another parliamentary assembly, the prohibition of the cumulation of candidates on the same list between an effective place and a substitute place, believing that this will force some clarity and that this will ensure the sincerity of the approach of the candidate who appears to the voter to assume a mandate.

But for us, we need to go further to reverse a kind of logic of growing dislike between the opinion and the political world. A clear measure is envisaged in the government agreement: simultaneity of elections. In Belgium, in the last ten years – I repeat it – we have voted seven times. There have been seven elections in ten years. So many democratic appointments – it is true – but also so many electoral periods that break, in some way, the cohesion and the work of the majorities, even those in place at the levels of power that are not directly concerned by the election. In Belgium, you can’t work in a closed vase; you know it. A significant result at the regional level has an impact on the work of the federal and vice versa. This is especially true today, when the transfer of important skills and funding from one entity to another is organized. The transition to five years of the federal legislature and the mechanism of simultaneous elections would allow rationalization of electoral appointments. Outside the local elections, in the next ten years, we would have only two electoral years: 2014 and 2019. This should allow to overpower the political debate, to credit it, to get out of a logic of everything in the short term, of advertising effects that do a huge mistake.

For the Reform Movement, there is another important advance that is addressed in the government agreement, even though there is no definitive agreement yet, and which needs to be discussed. I am talking about the national constituency. It is, for us, an element of bond that can also help to evacuate from political exchanges the sterile promises that galvanize a part of the electorate, and then disappoint it terribly. How not to see that what is said in the north of the country and which is in frontal opposition with what is presented by French-speaking parties, at the electoral hour, can only result in principle blockages, the latest example of which has almost been right in our political system. With a national constituency, what is said in the North should also convince in the South and vice versa. The government agreement provides for the establishment of a specific parliamentary committee called to extend this work by examining, among other things, additional measures likely to modernise parliamentary procedures, the issue of promoting ethics in politics, the consequences for the House of the reform of bicameralism - it will still have to be done -, the question of a federal electoral district in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I turn to you to emphasize the importance of the role entrusted by the negotiators of the agreement to our Assembly. For this reform work, we will rely on the House to draw the follow-up of what should restore credibility to our political system. I have no doubt that you will quickly give, Mr. Speaker, the useful follow-up to this mission provided for in the institutional agreement that binds the eight signatories.

Waiting, of course, and I will not surprise you, we will vote on the proposals submitted today to our Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bacquelaine, I thank you from all my heart for your very enlightening speech.

Most of the matters that Mr. Weyts subsequently cited as potential dangers have been confirmed by you, for which I thank you. There is one point on which I would like to ask a question. Can you explain to us, the assembly, what the meaning of the Brussels Capital Community is for your party?

Ik lees op uw website immers het volgende: "In addition, the agreement consents the existence, by a special law, of a metropolitan community that allows to expand Brussels on the basis of the Grand Brabant."

Can you explain the meeting what the meaning and fulfillment of it is for you and what opportunities you see for the Brussels Capital Community?

In our minds, everything that connects Brussels to Wallonia and Flanders is something positive. Brussels is the capital of this country. Brussels needs development.

We believe that the socio-economic context surrounding Brussels is an important element and that a city like Brussels cannot be separated from its periphery. I am speaking on a socio-economic level. This is the goal of the metropolitan community.

I think the links between any big city and its periphery are indispensable. Not a single city in Europe is inscribed on the European map without the possibility of so-called urban communities, highly developed in France but also in Germany and other countries. It is indispensable that the big cities are connected with their periphery on the socio-economic level. This is why the metropolitan community seems to us to be an interesting and important element.

Mr. Bacquelaine, what is the difference from what is already possible today? Brussels can conclude numerous cooperation agreements with its periphery, with municipalities, with the Region of Flanders, with the Region of Wallonia. It is true that big cities need contacts and consultation with their periphery. This is not the subject of the discussion.

But can you explain to me what additional opportunities the Capital Community offers compared to what is already possible today with the cooperation agreements and so on?

You force me to repeat. In terms of the economic development of any metropolis in Europe, whether Brussels or other cities, it is indispensable to have agreements between the surrounding municipalities and the metropolis itself. Between the nineteen municipalities of Brussels and the municipalities of the Brussels periphery but also, more broadly, between all the municipalities that benefit from the same economic development, it is important that there are synergies, complementarities, agreements, sometimes even transfers of competence between municipalities. Supracommunality is an essential thing throughout Europe. I do not see how Brussels would escape this economic and social reality valid in all European countries and in all modern countries.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. To say it with the words of colleague Weyts, fine on this point, and to say it with the words of Patrick Dewael, it is a respectable compromise and therefore a compromise.

The arrangement drawn up here must be interpreted and implemented in good faith in the future. BHV has been a problem for colleagues like Mr. Doomst for 40 years. I must honestly admit that this has been a real problem for me as Bruggeling for 5 years. It was also an unfair situation that one could not choose for people from the same language group. I think this is an operation toward purity in democracy. We can only welcome that. I hope that in the future we will be able to deal with other urgent problems.

As far as we are concerned, the same applies to the problems of the six facility municipalities. I think of the mayor and other disputes. Whoever is honest must acknowledge that there is a language discussion and that it may be good that it is dealt with by both language groups. One should not assume that judges at the Council of State would be too badly faithful or unfair. Either one believes in the rule of law, or one does not believe in the rule of law. What is proposed here is a procedure to unblock a political blockage by letting judges do their work.

As for Brussels, I think – living far from Brussels – that we must realize that Brussels is everyone’s and that we should be proud of it. That means that one must be able to consult correctly and that there must also be a proper financing. It is true that Brussels has many international tasks. It is true that Brussels is a beautiful city where many flamingos also come to work. There is also something for that. We must acknowledge that we cannot abandon Brussels in this regard. We must be proud, Brussels is ours too, Brussels is everyone’s. We want to finance it correctly and we also want to consult. He who is afraid of a community is afraid of himself and afraid of consultation. If consultation is provided, I assume that this means that we as Flammings will also have something to say.

A fourth reason to be satisfied is the end of the apparent mandates, the end of pro forma being on the list. As far as we are concerned, the coincidental elections must and will come. That is much better and we continue to insist on it and fight for it. However, let us be realistic. Fake mandates have been removed from the law today. Of course, we cannot counter the new phenomenon that people are candidates while they are not on the list. I see in various municipalities sticker tickets for a figure that is not even on the list. Per ⁇ this is the excessive ladder of the false mandates.

At least that is not what we want. We want more ethics in politics and above all, after the split of BHV, more politics that deals with the real concerns of the people.

The SPA will approve tomorrow, Friday the thirteenth, with full conviction the thirteen proposed legislation.

Following the intervention of Mr. Van Biesen, we interrupt the session at 13.30 am for a technical interruption. We will resume at 14:00.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, today we are talking about the closing of the federal structure of our country. The split of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district has evolved from an ancient Flemish demand, a will of the Flemish Movement, to a necessary measure to definitively and forever determine the boundaries of regions and communities. It is more than symbolism. It is a political organ point.

For me, the file also has a great significance. On January 1, 1983, I took the oath in the Kraainemse municipal council. For decades until now, facility municipalities have been the exchange currency for state reforms. All those years, these municipalities have been the playball of political verbal violence.

In almost 30 years, I have been able to vote on the French-speaking motions for attachment to Brussels several times. These motions were even titled “Crainhem, 20th commune de Bruxelles”.

There has always been a sharp contrast between the words of the political leaders, locally in Kraainem, and the will of the local population. The French-speaking politicians have only tried to get their right with Brussels politicians. These politicians have deceived and hypnotized the French speakers in the Rand. They told them that the Flemish politicians would agree to the expansion of Brussels in order to obtain the closing block of the federal structure.

Over the past 10 years, the politics related to the theme has radicalized, with all its consequences, especially with poor local governance in those facility municipalities resulting. The obvious achievement of a comparison through dialogue was no longer the case.

Open Vld, which as the only Flemish party in the Halfrond said that a state reform could only happen through a dialogue from community to community, was not rewarded by the voters in 2004.

It was the statement that the obvious split could only be forced by using the numerical majority of Flemish parliamentarians in our Halfrond, which at that time got heard by the voters. Even the vote on the bills of the split of BHV in the committee for internal affairs in the previous legislature could not convince the French-speaking colleagues of the clear will of the Flamings to settle the problem forever and definitively. The reactions in the French-language press did not lie about it. The Dutch-speaking commissioners stood with a photo on the front page of the newspaper with the title: "The Grave Delvers of Belgium".

This was especially difficult, colleagues. The split of the electoral circle BHV defines the boundaries. It is the closing block of the federal structure. She is good at promoting the coexistence of Flemish, Whaling and Brussels in Belgium, exactly the opposite of what was then smeared in the French-speaking press. The majority of the committee members at the time realized that one thousand and one grindels would be used to postpone the final vote indefinitely long before them. It was mainly to do them to get to the big comparison. Even then, the French-speaking people remained convinced that they could reach an enlargement of Brussels.

We needed more than a vote in the committee. It was ultimately necessary for the Open Vld and its chairman to give up confidence in the government. The split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde has hurt political decision-making for too long. The community problem weakened the government-Leterme to the bone. It was too poor to deal with the economic crisis, with all its consequences. Therefore, new elections were needed to solve the problem. The four political families on both sides of the language border had to work out a comparison.

Over the past five years, several proposals have circulated about the split of BHV. I myself submitted a proposal to the then royal servant Herman Van Rompuy. The various proposals of the Flemish parties were all variants on the same theme. There were small differences, but it always revolved around the same clear line: a purely possible split of BHV. It is therefore regrettable that, as yesterday on the 11th of July, a distinction is made between those who support the agreement and those who do not. There is a distinction between bad and less bad, good and less good Flames. That is ⁇ unfortunate, since the various proposals were variants on the same theme, including the note-De Wever, to which one has referred. The present draft is an improved version of that note.

By the way, he himself said yesterday on television that BHV is not a nightmare. According to him, there is nothing wrong with the split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, but the other bills pose a problem. Mr. Weyts then caricaturally and in his own way said exactly the same thing. There is nothing wrong with the split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. It is a variant on the same theme that is supported by all parties, with the exception of the Flemish Interest which, of course, is never willing to compromise.

I ask for political honesty to admit this. Yesterday it was said a little more clearly for the first time, and today it is also said in this Hemisphere. The split of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district is an acceptable, defensive split for most of this assembly, including the N-VA that had submitted a similar proposal.

The final compromise on Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde is an honest and good agreement. For 29 municipalities of Halle-Vilvoorde, it is a pure division. For the 6 facility municipalities bordering Brussels, there is a possibility to vote for the Vlaams-Brabant electoral district or for the Brussels electoral district. This was the only way to ensure that in Flemish-Brabant the seats for the Chamber went to Flemish parties. A repetition of the fact that in the Flemish Parliament is a representative of the Front des Francophones could only be avoided if the French-speaking people could not vote for a candidate from Flemish-Brabant, but for a French-speaking candidate from Brussels.

This arrangement also takes into account the specific situation in those facility municipalities. One always talks here about the beautiful Flemish Rand and the Flemish presence. I will give you an example from my own municipality, Kraainem, where the population situation is as follows. 15% are Belgians with a Dutch-speaking identity card, 55% are Belgians with a French-speaking identity card, 27% are citizens of the European Union and 3% are citizens from the rest of the world.

Do such population situations not require a specific approach, no tailoring? Is it not an excellent solution to reconcile the contradiction between the principle of territoriality and the right to freedom of every citizen to give the citizens of the facility municipalities the opportunity to vote for the Brussels electoral district?

The facility municipalities belong unambiguously to the Flemish Region. No majority can change that. The specific situation of the population is also tailored by this agreement. It is therefore over and out for the French-speaking extremists in the Rand around Brussels. Their motions for a twenty-first Brussels municipality blurred to reality. Since the birth of the butterfly agreement, there has clearly been a new wind in the Rand around Brussels, mainly due to the isolation of the FDF.

The FDF was the rotten French-speaking apple, which affected the very beautiful basket of elected in the Rand around Brussels. Today most French-speaking politicians distance themselves from the FDF and accept the fact that there will be no enlargement from Brussels. They also strive for more coexistence and governance together, live together and manage together. That favorable evolution came mainly thanks to the second splitting that was realized, namely the splitting between the MR and the FDF. It was a courageous but consistent decision of the MR, for which my appreciation.

For the 29 municipalities of Halle-Vilvoorde, this is, as mentioned, a pure division. The legitimate question of the mayors and ship colleges of all those municipalities becomes truth. Through their straight-line attitude, the numerous actions and sometimes even disobedience, we are today where we stand. Political pressure was ⁇ ined for 50 years. For them, today is undoubtedly a beautiful day, a late, but appreciated, 11 July gift. The Brussels interference, including in the courts, will soon belong to the past, because at this moment also in the Senate the splitting of the prosecutor’s office and the decoupling of the court are approved. The split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde is now a real fact.

Some speakers will, of course, talk about the difficult situation of the Flamings in Brussels to be elected in Brussels at this federal level. I must admit that in the original proposal that I have made myself there were guaranteed seats for the Brussels Flamings, but that proposal is legally difficult to work out and to make hard. The current division is pure, without distinction, and gives every citizen equal voting weight. The current situation gives a Flemish party almost no possibility to get a chosen person for the Chamber. This is true, but should it remain so?

Where is the Flemish ambition going? Flanders have declared Brussels their capital, but what does Flanders do for Brussels? When will Flanders develop a positive policy plan for its capital? When will Flanders again cherish Brussels? It is just because Flanders alienates Brussels that its presence in that capital decreases. Thousands of workers prefer to move to Brussels rather than live there. When will Flanders deal with this?

No, cancers, blaming and pointing with the finger, that is the policy of the Flemish government, rather than conducting a positive and open-minded policy for Brussels. In a short period of time the tile can be reversed, but then it must be done with mourning and mourning and there must be worked and tried to give the Flamings a place in their own capital, Brussels.

The same applies to the Flemish Rand. In recent years, there has been no notable policy of the Flemish government for that Flemish Rand, with the exception of the well-functioning cultural temples of vzw De Rand. With the disappearance of Minister Vandenbroucke, any investment in the facility municipalities has stopped.

The Peeters government has not made any notable investment in those last years, with the exception of the youth home in Sint-Genesius-Rode.

To the Flemish majority parties in the Flemish government, I say clearly that those who do not invest in their border area will lose this border area in the long run. This is happening de facto in the facility municipalities. Fortunately, here in Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde we are concluding an agreement, which arranges the final commitment that they will never be attached to Brussels. Therefore, it is more painful to establish that the Flemish government and the Flemish Parliament are not involved.

Flemish majority parties in that Flemish government, take back. Koester the Flemish Rand, koester your capital Brussels. This Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde agreement should give a boost to better and constructive cooperation in the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde area and in Brussels itself. This agreement should be the basis for understanding each other better and dealing with each other in a mature way.

A second set of proposals concerns the appointment of the mayors and the State Council. Three out of six facility municipalities today do not have a full-time mayor.

We are 97 days before the new elections, three of the six facility municipalities today have no full-time mayor, with all the consequences of this on the administrative level. “It is clear, the board in those facility municipalities,” said Governor De Witte, “are the weakest students in the class. They are the poorest governed municipalities.”

These mayors were never appointed. They violate the laws and do not accept the language decrees of this country and repeatedly claim to want to do so again. They are not worthy of the Mayor’s office. There had to be an end to that mayor’s carousel, of which only the clowns involved became better.

A new procedure is established. I must tell you that I can register in this procedure. For these municipalities must indeed also have a mayor, a full-fledged mayor, and such carousels as today cannot be repeated. My own municipality Kraainem was one of three municipalities with such a ballous mayor. The new procedure will work faster. In the future, French speakers will only be able to nominate candidates-mayors who comply with laws and decrees. Carrouses that push the same candidate forward three times will also disappear.

There is a double element there, there is the law on which we vote today and that which has been approved in the Flemish Parliament. Two times the same candidate may not be elected. These two elements reinforce each other and are not contradictory. It is a special scheme, but with a clearly beneficial effect.

The new rule also provides for the requirement that all administrative disputes relating to the six district municipalities and the natural or legal persons established there fall within the competence of the general meeting of the Department of Administrative Justice of the Council of State.

Unlike the previous speakers, I also see no problem in this proposal. The General Assembly will, of course, make the same decision as the unitary chambers, right is right. I cannot share the fear that some elements from the past, such as the validity of the circular letter-Peeters, would not be confirmed by this. The circular letter-Peeters has been declared valid by all competent levels. The General Assembly can only confirm the position of the Dutch-speaking Chamber. No one should be afraid, ⁇ not of his own shadow.

The two series of bills confirm that there is only one language of administration in Flanders, confirm that there is only one language of administration in the six facility municipalities, confirm that the rebellious French-speaking mayors cannot and will not be appointed yesterday, today or tomorrow, and confirm that there will never be an expansion of Brussels.

These bills close a period of unprecedented harassment, interference and poor administration.

The third set of proposals concerns the establishment of the Brussels Capital Community and the refinancing of Brussels. These are two important bills for anyone who has a good mind with Brussels and with Flemish and Waals-Brabant.

Let me make it clear that imposing a consultation between the municipalities of Flemish and Waals-Brabant, the two provinces and the Brussels Capital Region is a good thing. We are now too stuck in supercommunal constraints. I will give two examples from the unfinished state reforms, namely the mandatory cooperation agreements and the different noise standards in the West. Is it not absurd that one Region can mortgage the future of the national airport, which happens to be located in another Region? Is it not absurd that the housing and collection of the National Plant Garden leaves something to be desired because there is no mandatory structure where one can come to cooperation?

Flanders should slowly begin to behave as a mature state within the Belgian federal structure. It should use such consultation moments in order to better exercise its powers.

Since then, I have already held a fierce plea for the embrace of Brussels as our capital. I often heard the slogan “Flanders will not let Brussels go.” Even yesterday, on the occasion of the July 11 celebrations. But too often I hear in recent times among politicians in Flanders a different phrase, which is: “Flanders wants to solve nothing for Brussels, no euro, nothing, nada!”

Brussels is crucial for prosperity and well-being throughout Belgium. Some figures illustrate this position. The Brussels Capital Region accounts for 15.3% of the total number of jobs in Belgium. 52% of them are taken by pendlers. Not only the Brussels Capital Region, but also the entire region around that Region, which is oriented towards the capital, accounts for 30% of the Belgian wealth. The Brussels Capital Region is the engine of the Belgian economy. If the engine fails, the land falls. The last thing we can do in the current economic situation is to let Brussels fall, or to keep it secret.

Since 2007, the Open Vld has expressly supported the refinancing of the Brussels Capital Region. That amount serves to provide, in the interests of all Communities and Regions, a response to the legitimate needs of the beating heart of our economy.

I will briefly discuss the new financing of Brussels. It includes the following elements. The special credit in favour of the municipalities on the territory of which there are properties exempt from property tax will now cover the lost income in its entirety. The regions will also be compensated 100% for the failure to collect the proceeds of the corresponding regional real estate tax, while the compensation in favour of the Brussels Capital Region will also cover the failure to collect the opcentiems of the agglomeration.

Starting from the 2012 financial year, a special appropriation will be deposited directly into the Medium Budget of the Brussels Capital Region as a special contribution to the mobility policy, in particular public transport.

Given that ⁇ 60 % of the jobs are occupied by non-Brussels and the majority of travellers come from the Flemish Region – in order of importance the regions of Leuven, Aalst, Antwerp, Gent, Asse and Mechelen – this measure is not without importance for Flanders. Every day, about a quarter of a million workers travel from Flanders to the Brussels Capital Region. The most recent figures speak of approximately 235 000 Flemish pendlers.

A further element is an additional credit of EUR 30 million, which will be allocated to the Fund to finance some of the security-related expenditure arising from the organization of European summits.

Many colleagues from the Flemish Rand here know and sit in police councils and know how often and how many full-time equivalents are attributed to European summits and how many people from the region should be made available. I myself am in the police council of the WOKRA zone, where we must make five to ten members available, although there is a certain activity in Brussels, resulting from the organization of European summits.

The amount of a special grant for the French Community Commission and the Flemish Community Commission will be increased gradually. The final item, the base amount of EUR 125 million, which the Beliris Fund receives annually, is consolidated. We have already discussed this in detail.

Financing is not in itself. In Brussels, too, things need to be put in order. The internal Brussels state reform, which is currently being discussed in the Brussels subparliament, is a first step towards better governance: more efficiency and scale advantages in Brussels.

The idea of creating a Brussels Capital Community is not new. Employers have long been a demanding party. In 2008, the regional employer organisations of Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia presented a common vision for a European-standard economic urban region, namely their BMR plan or the plan for a Brussels Metropolitan Region. The Flemish employers are also the requesting party in this regard.

Such cooperation will of course have to grow. Especially in the areas of mobility, education and employment, we can ⁇ a lot, once the distrust has been reduced. The framework is now becoming a reality with this proposal. The completion will have to take place on the ground.

The draft law establishing a Brussels Capital Community stipulates that it will be composed of three regions, the federal government and all municipalities of the old province of Brabant. The provinces of Vlaams-Brabant and Waals-Brabant can also join. That Capital Community shall have the task of organising consultations on matters for which the Regions are competent, but which concern several Regions. To this end, the three Regions shall conclude a cooperation agreement to establish the detailed rules and the subject of that consultation. As long as the three regions have not concluded the aforementioned cooperation agreement, the consultation between the three regions will take place outside the Capital Community.

I cannot express any appreciation for people who do not like that project. Nor can I express appreciation for the Flemish keffers who already clearly indicate that they will do everything they can to boycott that consultation. They go even further and demand that the municipalities should no longer be allowed to consult. Can I remind them that consultation is the basic rule of democracy and the basis of our Western civilization? Without structured consultation, no solution. This has been proved many times in recent times. No fear of what is new. Our Parliament offers huge opportunities to the region around Brussels. That comes in favor of prosperity and well-being, not only of Ben Weyts’ children, but of all children from the Flemish Rand.

A fourth cluster is about political renewal. In a fourth series of legislative proposals, we address the proposals aimed at strengthening democracy and political credibility. The red seats in the Senate are somewhat cut off by the years of discussions on this topic. Today we decide on a first set of measures within that framework to promote election correctness. I mention the cumulative prohibition of candidates in simultaneous elections whose mandates are incompatible. In the case of non-direct elections, a legal resignation from the current mandate occurs in the case of elections to another parliamentary assembly. In other words, one is obliged to include the mandate for which one was last nominated. There is also a prohibition to be on both the effective list and the list of successors. Normally, this provision will be effective at the 2014 simultaneous elections. It is a first step in political renewal, necessary to restore the credibility of the world’s second oldest profession.

Today I am an uplifted Flemish boy from the Flemish Rand around Brussels. Many mortgages are being settled today. Today we are taking a big step forward. Today we are fulfilling a lot of election promises. Today we also realized that our ties across the language boundary are fortunately stronger than the differences. We are thus the seaters of the stones for a better Flanders and a better Belgium. I like this image more than the image of the tomb-delivery used in the voting in the Chamber Committee.

Today we approve proposals that are good for Flanders and good for the Flemish Rand.

We invite you to interrupt our work until 2 p.m.

We will continue with Mr. Van Hecke, followed by Mrs. Pas, Mr. Brotcorne, Mrs. Van Vaerenbergh, Mrs. Marghem, Mrs. Gerkens, Mr. Maingain, by Mr. Logghe, Mr. by Donna, Mr. by Valkeniers, Mr. Thierry Mr. De Man, Mrs. Jadin, Mr. by Annemans, Mr. Goyvaerts, Mr. Schoofs and Mr. by Veys.